Talk:Aga Khan IV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

=office and person= parts of this article fail to distinquish between the office (aga khan) and the person

Dubious[edit]

This dubious tag was added in March 2012 without discussion. The reference is from and correctly attributed to the NY Times.[1]

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.[2]
  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[3] 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.

alys 04:42, 5 May 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.

alys 04:42, 5 May 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, alys 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added some citations that were pointed out by Alys. 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, Alys 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 Alys 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)

MyShare, thank you for referencing part of the last paragraph of the intro.

With regard to your personal dislike of me, please bring forth any evidence you have of inflammatory language that I've used. Unlike you, I don't have any reasons to be particularly for or against the Aga Khan. I want to see an unbiased article on him, not one peppered with slander OR one with unjustified compliments. All important facts about the Aga Khan should be presented, regardless of how (positively or negatively) they reflect on him or anyone else.

Also, you've just removed a BIG part of the intro, all of which was referenced. It's not fair to do that without consulting with others who've spent a lot of time and hard work on making the Aga Khan IV page complete. YES, the intro needs to be shortened - but, what has been written and referenced should not be deleted but rather condensed or moved elsewhere. You've removed important facts about the Aga Khan.

Specifically, I see that you've deleted the discussion on the tithes that are given to Aga Khan, how much they amount to, and what the tithes are used for. This discussion was entirely referenced and the contributors who made it what it was spent a lot of time on it. You also write that dasond is derived from Zakat. However, this is incorrect, as Zakat is only a small part of Dasond (2.5% out of 25%) - which is already explained under "Personal finances." You've also deleted the information relating to the other monies collected for the Aga Khan during Nizari Ismaili worship services.

I humbly request you to undo the deletions you've made from the page on Aga Khan IV. Please do not let your bias interfere with cited facts about the Aga Khan that are presented in an unbiased way. In fact, the entire article now only includes two mentions of tithes, which is rather ridiculous.

Thank you, and I await your undoing of the deletions you've made. An apology for the personal attack you made on my Talk page would also be nice. But, I don't want to push my luck. alys 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


Undoing the deletions made is now not required because the same content is moved to the other part of the page.

Dashond is always on net income and not gross income, whether annual, monthly, weekly or daily. Net income in the sense after deduction of all legitimate expenses and even the taxes that need to be paid. Please provide reliable source to prove that dashond is on gross income.

This entire wiki article is about Aga Khan and not about about his monetary balance sheet. Though right now it looks like one. It looks like a blog with someone overwhemingly writing about his income and lifestyles; again and again in the same article; at length.

In fact a simple line or two on the same would have been more than sufficient.

In Ismaili belief, which is very personal and should be respected, the latest farmans of the Imam are what is followed. So quoting what the previous Imam had to say and what the current Imam says has no place on wikipedia. You can write (and certainly have written) on your own blog or website. Wikipedia is not an essay WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Please present some latest reliable documents/sources, which attest that the same rituals mentioned in the Haji Bibi Case are applicable today. Secondly, this part should go as it has nothing to do with the main article. If that is related to the article, then each and every visit made by the Aga Khan across the world, each and every interview and speech of his are also related to the main article. But we know that this is not a personal blog it is wikipedia. Be precise. WP:NOTADVOCATE

Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. WP:SOAP

Hope the article becomes more and more neutral in the days to come. Forgive my spelling errors if they have creeped in.

Myshare (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Myshare, I'm undoing your changes because you're removing stuff that has been cited, factual, and is neutrally stated. If you've got something to add, do so and add your citations. Please stop making unwarranted deletions to the Wiki of Aga Khan IV. I suggest you prepare to be sanctioned or otherwise disciplined if you keep doing so.

If you want to claim something about Nizari Ismailis or the Aga Khan, you must cite what you're saying. Otherwise, the Wiki will be based on perceptions and unverifiable claims rather than facts and verifiable claims.

Regarding Dasond, please give a citation to support your claim. I was able to find a reference for Dasond being on gross income (which accords to my understanding of Dasond) and have added it to the Wiki. I was not able to find any reference to indicate Dasond is calculated on net income, based on brief research into the matter. I did find this discussion on dasond, which may be of interest: http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=7391&sid=ae070507659bb112c7202ca065740316

Kind regards, alys 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dasond reference and quotes from Amjij[edit]

The two references I have regarding dasond in the lead does not specify net or gross. The link above does not clearly specify gross income.

4Dpeace indicated that the book "Understanding Ismailism" is self published. I checked and as I've written here I agree. In my experience, I was able to find other appropriate published references to cover much of the material which I originally cited from "Understanding Ismailism."

The following quotes are from Amiji:[2]

... regular dasond (the zakat or alms tax of the Ismailis), 1/8 of gross monthly income of each wage earner which is collected every month together with numerous other religious dues.

The regular payment of dasond is greatly emphasized in The Firmans of the Aga Khan and in Ismaili religious literature. See Aga Khan III, Kalam e Imam e Mubin, Holy Firmans of Mowlana Haz Imam Sultan Mohamed Shah The Aga Khan, Bombay, Vol. II, 1880 — 1950.

I did not look up the Firmans.

Amiji also writes:

In the seventy years during which the Aga Khan and his family had lived in Bombay and Europe they had grown wealthy through investments in real estate, stocks and bonds and in the breeding and racing of horses. This made Aga Khan III largely independent of the revenues collected by his followers. Although the Imam was the sole, legal owner of all communal funds and incomes, in practice he gave much of it back to the community. He acted as a sort of distribution center and all projects involving use of communal money had to be approved by him. The expenses for building and maintaining such Ismaili institutions as health clinic, sports and recreational clubs, libraries, Jamaatkhanas, hospitals, schools and social welfare to needy members of the community were partly met through grants from the Imam and partly through private donations by wealthy Ismailis.

Amiji references: L.W. Hollingsworth, The Asian of East Africa, pp. 132-3. for the last one, which I also haven't looked at yet.

What I have overall is: The Aga Khan is the sole owner of the communal funds, he receives dasond and various tithes and he does not disclose the amount he receives or the amount he returns to the community. Towards the end of the Aga Khan's grandfather's time, the Aga Khan had become quite wealthy and gave back almost as much as he received.

I believe this corroborates the NY Times reference in the lead.

I hesitate to add changes in the middle of this ongoing discussion, but I urge you use verifiable and neutral as guidelines. Best, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

FordPrefect1979, I'm going to add Amiji as a reference for "gross" and also for the other tithes other than Dasond. I can't comment on your other points, other than to say that I agree that "Understanding Ismailism" is not the best reference, and that all of those involved with Wikipedia should stick to verifiable information that is posted in a non-partisan way.

Thanks, alys 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Amiji does not state gross income anywhere. I do not see mention of gross of net income. Based on what I've read the gross income thing is not valid, or at the very least it is not clearly stated in published material.
Please look over the talk page and you will find a discussion of the book "Understanding Ismailism" between Rallyeye and myself. Basically, I agree that the book is self published and therefore it is an inappropriate reference for WP:BLP.
FordPrefect1979 (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

FordPrefect1979,

In your message, you included the following block quote from Amiji:

... regular dasond (the zakat or alms tax of the Ismailis), 1/8 of gross monthly income of each wage earner which is collected every month together with numerous other religious dues.

It says "1/8 of gross monthly income of each wage earner". This is Amiji saying this, based on what you've written. Am I missing something?

Thank you, alys 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alys,
Yes you are correct. I undid my revision.
Amiji does say gross income and reference he gives is the Firmans.
Thanks,
FordPrefect1979 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Style HRH and HH & Other[edit]

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.

alys 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Silent Prince Of Islam[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[1]

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.

alys 04:42, 5 May 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.

alys 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How do we get the Neutrality Disputed tag removed, now? Anyone? alys 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Request to remove NPOV disputed Tag from December 2011[edit]

I reckon we can just ask other editors that are still about.

Can the NPOV disputed tag be removed? Does anyone have specific points where the neutrality is still disputed?

See WP:NPOVD

Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


Leave the neutrality disputed tag up (April, 2012)[edit]

I'm going to answer my own question here, and to some extent change my mind. I would like the tag to stay. I recently replaced the word sect with denomination as I felt the word was pejorative.

It appears to me that editors of this page can include those who follow the Aga Khan, Ismaili's, and those Muslims who do not feel Ismaili is a valid interpretation. I would like to ask both to stick to verifiable facts and to stick to a neutral point of view.

In replacing the word sect, I noticed the following:

The Aga Khan is one of several "Ulama" signatories of the Amman Message, which gives a broad foundation for defining Islamic schools of thought or denominations that can considered as part of the wider Muslim Ummah[4], even if they traditionally may not have been viewed as part of it.[citation needed]

Which I modified and asked for a citation. I am concerned that the following phrase can be considered pejorative as it is currently written:

even if they traditionally may not have been viewed as part of it.

As many changes, which on my first reading appear beneficial sourced, have occurred recently, I recommend we wait some time to see of there are any challenges, and improvements before removing the tag.

Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi FordPrefect1979,

Regarding the term "sect," I personally don't see how it's "pejorative." However, if you feel strongly about it, so be it - I will not (and don't think anyone else will) oppose. But, to me, "denomination" and "sect" are both neutral terms. Let's remember that people from all over the world contribute to Wikipedia and what you consider "pejorative" may be viewed as neutral by others. I'm sure there was no intent for the person who wrote "sect" to be pejorative, in any case.

Regarding "even if they traditionally..." - then, if this can be cited, I don't see an issue - although the sentence may need to be re-worded a bit. From my understanding, it is correct to say that, traditionally (or historically, I suppose), Nizari Ismailis have been regarded as outcasts by many other Muslims. For better or for worse (please don't assume I have a stand on it), most Sunni Muslim scholars as well as most Twelver Muslim scholars still don't consider Nizari Ismailis to be Muslims, based on what I personally am aware of. So, the sentence can probably be cited...with some effort, but, may need to be re-worded a bit.

Kind regards, Mukesh.ambani (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Mukesh.ambani, 69.165.248.173, and Alisomji,

I first of all would like to thank you all for the contributions you have added over the last while.

With regards to to the word sect. Please see contentious labels.

I am concerned about, loaded words and editorializing. I myself have used the word claim for example, and I believe I can improve on the neutrality of what I have written over time.

Another example of editorializing is found in the Divine nature section:

There may be a discrepancy between the publicized position of the Imam in Nizari Ismailism, according to the present Aga Khan and his representatives, versus the position he truly occupies in the private worship services of Nizari Ismailis (which are not open to the public nor other Muslims).

The Amman Message had Islamic scholars from various denominations--Shia and Sunni. The phrase regarding historical views can still be made more neutral in my opinion.

Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

FordPrefect1979, Thank you for directing me to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I suppose you're right to ask that the word "sect" not be used. My apologies for not being aware that Wikipedia had something to say on this. I, of course, completely agree with you that Wikipedia pages should refrain from editorializing and should emphasize neutrality as well as facts.

Regarding the Amman Message and that it was signed by various Muslim scholars, at least some of the scholars who signed it still consider Nizari Ismailis as non-Muslims if you view their fatwas or Q&A on the subject (on their websites or in other venues), based on my research. Also, I'm not sure that many of the signatories are aware that Nizari Ismailis have been included under the Jafari school, as the Jafari school is normally taken in the Islamic world to mean the Twelver (mainstream Shia Muslim) community. In any case, I think one would have difficulty finding many Muslim scholars from other denominations showing acceptance of Nizari Ismailis as Muslims prior to the Amman Message - and, perhaps they have accepted them as Muslims through the Amman Message, but, I think it is rather dubious for the reasons I mention above.

In any case, I've tried to re-word the areas of the Wiki you indicated may need re-wording. Perhaps they need further work. Please feel free to put forth suggestions if you think so.

In the last sentence of your message, I think you used the word "denominations" rather liberally. I think the use of this term needs to be applied rather carefully. The differences between, say, Sunnis who follow the Hanafi school versus Sunnis who follow the Maliki school are relatively few compared to the differences between say Nizari Ismailis and Bohra Ismailis. Generally, the former two pray together in the same mosques and usually consider themselves as part of one community (as the differences primarily relate to certain minutiae in the interpretation of Islamic law), while the latter two don't pray together, have separate mosques (or places of worship), and usually consider themselves as part of altogether different communities. In other words, the differences within Sunni Islam are usually (not always) related to fiqh, and the same can be said for mainstream Shia Islam, as a matter of fact - where Twelvers who interpret Islamic law slightly differently nevertheless see themselves as one community, by and large. The differences, on the other hand, between Twelvers and Nizari Ismailis, or Nizari Ismailis and Bohra Ismailis, or Twelvers and Bohra Ismailis, are significant and readily visible - and that may be why these communities rarely (if ever) congregate together for religious purposes. In fact, the differences between these three communities appear to be significantly larger than the differences between the Sunnis and mainstream Shias (Twelvers) - which is quite unlike what one would expect, perhaps. This is just based on the information that I've gathered, anyway, which I'm sure is rather limited compared to the knowledge of many here.

Best regards, Mukesh.ambani (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply.

I defer to your expertise in the various schools of Islam. However, frankly, I find myself even more concerned with neutrality after reading your response. I have, in my writing, tried to adopt a non editorializing and neutral point of view. I ask you kindly to do the same. The article should conform to the Wikipeida policies, some of which I have already pointed out.

  1. French Businessman in the lead appears to be in the tone of a slight. His place of birth, residence and net worth are noted in the side bar. From the various references he does not hold French citizenship.
  2. The discussion of alcohol seems at variance with the references. The SI article notes that the Aga Khan does not drink. I do not see the Aga Khan stating a direct prohibition against alcohol in the sunday times reference used, in fact the Aga Khan states:

    Our belief is that the thing which separates man from the animals is his power of thought. Anything that impedes this process is wrong. Therefore alcohol is forbidden. I have never touched alcohol. But this, to me, is not a puritan prohibition. I don't want to drink. I've never wanted to drink. There's no pressure being placed on me by my religion.

  3. There is editorializing in the divinity section which I pointed out above.
  4. Noting his father's relationships with women in the section regarding his divorce appears to be a slight. The tone is not neutral in my eyes.

I urge the editors to be neutral, precise, and to adhere to wikipedia policies.

Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi FordPrefect1979,

When you continue to mention that editors should be neutral, precise, and adhere to Wikipedia policies, it implicitly suggests that the person you're communicating with is not trying to maintain a neutral stance on the subject matter at hand, in my humble opinion. There are imperfections and mistakes in all Wikis, and they shouldn't necessarily be assumed to have to do with a lack of desire on the part of certain contributors (such as myself) for neutrality. In any case, let me reiterate (though I don't feel I should need to) that, as Wikipedia desires: I want to see a neutral / balanced Wiki, supported by facts and citations throughout - that is not aimed at showing the entity under discussion in a necessarily good or necessarily bad light, but, simply a fair light.

It is my opinion that at times you have editorialized in a manner that I try not to. This is not in any way a personal slight, I am expressing a concern with some of what you have written. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like you're saying I'm trying not to be neutral. That isn't the case. Anything I say that comes off as non-neutral is not out of desire to be non-neutral, but, simply out of error and imperfection. You seem to have a hard time understanding that. We're all human beings and we are sometimes non-neutral even when we're trying to be neutral. I don't judge you to be purposely non-neutral when you could be writing in a more neutral way in certain areas, and I'd appreciate if you'd do the same with me. I will try and enhance neutrality wherever possible, and am trying to work with you in a cooperative way. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you would be respectful and stop trying to judge me, including by making implicit remarks or by suggesting that I'm not trying to be neutral.
In short, instead of giving your opinion about what you think about me, point out the issues you have with what I contribute and I will try to address them as best as I can - with your help, of course. Let's leave it at that and let's try and be professionals, please.
Thank you,
Mukesh.ambani (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what you mean by this comment: "I find myself even more concerned with neutrality after reading your response." Please expand on what you mean. Your comment is disturbing to me and I hope it isn't meant as a "slight."

I am concerned that you have editorialized in a manner that is not neutral, and I am concerned that some language may give of an undertone that "he (or they) are not real Muslims." "Look he (his grandfather) drinks drink alcohol."
This is my opinion and my concern. Ismaili's are a minority in Islam and parts of their practice does not confirm to what appears to be the Muslim norm, however the religion is based on the Islam. I believe it would be more neutral to point out that because of practice A, and belief B, many Muslims would not recognize Ismaili's as fellow Muslims, and cite perhaps Asani. But I ask that you be careful to not write anything that could imply, "look they aren't Muslims." This is a concern I also have with the book "Understanding Ismailism" FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I haven't said anywhere they aren't Muslims, or tried to indicate such. Yes, I have stated that they are often looked at differently than other Muslims - and, that's not just my opinion, but, the opinion of most who've written about Nizari Ismailis, both in academic and other spheres. For example, even the Institute of Ismaili Studies, commissioned by the Aga Khan, has commented on how Nizari Ismailis have been often negatively perceived by other Muslims on many occasions.
Contrary to what you're trying to (unfairly) suggest, I have no bone to bruise with Nizari Ismailis and have in fact defended them here on multiple occasions (such as there's nothing wrong with the Aga Khan being a businessman because many Muslim leaders are, and that alcoholism is indeed prohibited in Nizari Ismailism - like in almost every other Muslim "denomination" - contrary to what you're indicating). But, I do want the article to be fair and for facts to be presented in a neutral fashion. There's no reason to hide information pertinent to the Wiki because it may be perceived as unusual.
I do not mean to question your intention or goodwill. I simply meant to comment on how I read what you wrote. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, our job is neither to defend Nizari Ismailis nor to offend them. Same goes for the Aga Khan. I'm not interested in taking sides in a conflict I have nothing to do with and want no part of. State the facts and let others interpret them as they will. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. Wikipedia is extremely clear on this, and I suggest you look at their policy on it, as I just did.
Best,
Mukesh.ambani (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the specific areas of the Wiki you highlight:
The Aga Khan has a French passport and lives in as well as keeps his main personal residence in France (and has done so for a very long time). He also has a long history of business dealings internationally, and retains vast business interests throughout the world that personally benefit him and/or his family. Showing him as simply an Imam of the Nizari Ismaili community is lacking given that he has various responsibilities that he attends to outside of Nizari Ismailism on a regular basis - many of which relate to the business interests of him and/or his family. Let me add that, from what I've seen, many Nizari Ismailis are proud of the fact that the Aga Khan is a businessman (like, to some extent, the Prophet Muhammad was) as well as their Imam.

I wasn't aware he had a French passport, one of the articles on his divorce indicates he had the trial moved to France even though he was British. This is something I was concerned about as a possible slight. I didn't think "businessman" and spiritual are associated positively. Perhaps I'm biased, but I find it hard not to see this as a slight. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Aga Khan has a French passport and you will not have difficulty finding information on this online. If you do, let me know. The fact that he had the trial moved to France, and was able to move it to France, just indicates to us once again that he has a very strong connection to France.
Saying Aga Khan is also a businessman is not a slight. First of all, it's factual - and for the reasons I mentioned, which you have not argued against in making your point. The Aga Khan has several business interests and conducts business on several fronts internationally on a regular basis, and this is part of why he is as wealthy and successful as he is. The New York Times was careful to note this in titling its story on speaking with the Aga Khan: "The Aga Khan, a jet-setter who mixes business and Islam." Business is an integral part of the Aga Khan's life. Secondly, Islam is not Christianity (or the traditional view of Christianity). Spiritual leaders can be business people as well, and often are, in Islam. And, you can replace business person with any other type of professional. The Prophet Muhammad was known for his business prowess and business interests as well as being a Prophet. I think you perceive it as a slight perhaps because you come from a Judeo-Christian background and have trouble reconciling the spiritual with the non-spiritual. Islam doesn't distinguish between these two spheres. The Aga Khan himself has commented on this on multiple occasions. Islam strongly discourages monasticism and celibacy for this reason, and strongly encourages its adherents to be active both inside and outside the mosque or place of worship.
Ultimately, I don't think you have a valid concern here, based on what you've written.
Mukesh.ambani (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the alcohol prohibition in Nizari Ismailism, if you look at the quote you cite, it clearly says: "Our belief is that the thing which separates man from the animals is his power of thought. Anything that impedes this process is wrong." He goes on to say: "Therefore alcohol is forbidden." That sounds to me like a clear prohibition against alcohol. The latter part of his quote that you cite indicates that he wouldn't drink alcohol even if it wasn't prohibited - but, I don't see how it invalidates that "alcohol is forbidden." There are farmans on the topic of prohibition of alcohol for Nizari Ismailis, also. These are difficult to cite, however, as you may understand. Let me add that you will have a hard time finding any Nizari Ismailis who believe that the Aga Khan hasn't prohibited alcohol. In any case, when I get a chance, I will look for additional references to support the prohibition on alcohol by the Imam.

I read it as there is no prohibition against alcohol, "There's no pressure being placed on me by my religion." Yes I see some contradiction in the quote, however he states there is not pressure placed on him by religion. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
He's implying that even if alcohol wasn't prohibited, he wouldn't drink it anyway. That's why he doesn't perceive it as a pressure from his religion. I think that's pretty clear, and I personally know Muslims (including Nizari Ismailis) who feel similarly to him. He wouldn't have said "alcohol is forbidden" if it was just disliked rather than prohibited.
You can see evidence of the prohibition on alcohol here, even though it isn't a valid source for Wikipedia, where Nizari Ismailis overwhelmingly claim that their religion prohibits alcohol: http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=307&sid=98ba13a962ffcb5ec99d18f6eaf36080
I challenge you to find even one credible source, anywhere, that says Nizari Ismailism doesn't prohibit alcohol. If I was trying to make Nizari Ismailis look bad in front of other Muslims, I would be arguing in your favor. But, I'm arguing against you - because to suggest that Nizari Ismailis aren't prohibited from drinking alcohol would be flat out partial, inaccurate, and incorrect - whereas I'm interested in presented impartial, accurate, and correct information.
Mukesh.ambani (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought I did? FordPrefect1979 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the other specific areas of the Wiki you mention, please indicate how you would relay what is currently being conveyed in a more neutral fashion - without disregarding the related factual or cited information, and the context in which said information is presented. I will be happy to hear your suggestions and will be happy to modify anything I've written to sound more neutral, if possible. Of course, at the same time, any modifications shouldn't take away from factual and cited information that is pertinent to the Wiki.

I have mentioned what I feel is editorializing, specifically going beyond the quotes, or in the case of an equivocal quote, picking one possible meaning. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Please give specific suggestions on how you'd revise the "Divine Nature" and "Amman Message" sections to make them more neutral, as well as the "Marriages" section. This would be a lot more helpful than simply voicing that you have a concern. Please tell me how you would re-word what has been written, because I'm not sure how to re-word these sections so as to alleviate your concerns as well as retain neutrality.
I have done my best to express myself. I'm afraid we disagree. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you,
Mukesh.ambani (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally, regarding the neutrality tag that is being left up, I would like to share from the Wikipedia NPOV page that:

The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Are the conditions that are required for leaving the tag in place currently met? It seems it should be a last resort.

Interesting. I did not add the tag, I actually thought it was added because of my contributions. Regardless, I did ask you not to remove it. However; after you feel you have addressed my concerns you are welcome remove the tag, unless someone objects.
I have no idea how to remove the tag. I don't know where it when I open the editor. I suggest it be removed, nonetheless, and the POV-section tag be used instead on any areas of the Wiki you feel lack neutrality for specific reasons that you have brought forward to the Talk page.
Thank you,
Mukesh.ambani (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I hope I've made my concerns specific, and I appreciate that you have taken the time to respond and make adjustments.FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Please make specific suggestions for the changes you'd like to see, and show you would word the areas you're concerned about. I'm trying to work with you and I hope you'll work with me. I hope we can both act like professionals and simply highlight and address issues rather than imply things about each other, which I see as a waste of time as well as inappropriate and disrespectful. I hope you can see that.
Best,
Mukesh.ambani (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mukesh.ambani (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You know, I put the word claim up for the lineage to replace the word "is". I defended my choice, which was reverted back to "is", and then I changed it to trace out of concern of WP:CLAIM, and now you have put claim back. I tend to agree with WP:CLAIM. Do you not think the word is loaded? FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This is from the wikipedia manual of style:
To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
While this may be subtle, this is the sort of wording that adds to my neutrality concerns. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand why Wikipedia says "claim" may not be a neutral term. However, I don't think Wikipedia is saying that the word "claim" may never be used. It's not a hard and fast rule, from what I can see. Wikipedia seems to simply be saying that it should be used with caution. I think this is one of those occasions where the word "claim" is appropriate to use. In the case of the Aga Khan and who he is descended from, there are multiple biographical materials of strong reputability on the Aga Khan that use the word "claim" with regard to he's descended from. Personally, to me, "claim" seems the appropriate term because the Aga Khan is claiming someone as a direct descendant that may or may not in fact be a direct descendant. Professors such as Peter Lamborn Wilson strongly imply there is no evidence that the Aga Khan is a descendant of Prophet Muhammad, for example.
"Trace" doesn't sound neutral to me, because it makes it sound like the descent from Prophet Muhammad is genuine, when it may in fact not be.
Mukesh.ambani (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I have raised my concern. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You can remove the tag or do what you wish. It appears you have more knowledge of the topic than I do, and I defer to your knowledge. I respect that you are interested in improving the page, and I respect that you are putting a lot of work into this. Please respect my concern about precise use of references and editorializing--using your unreferenced knowledge. I will not be spending time editing this page in the near future. I wish you the best. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

FordPrefect1979, I'm disappointed to hear you're leaving. Best wishes with all your endavours and I hope you'll return in the future. I've tried to address your concerns to the extent I can. If you would be willing to show how you'd re-word the sections you're concerned about, we could discuss further. But, alas...

Kind regards and best wishes, Mukesh.ambani (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag Removed (April, 2012)[edit]

I've removed the NPOV tag as no one seems to object and because most of the article, at least, I think we can all agree is neutral - so putting a tag on the whole page is not justified, at minimum.

What I suggest is that anyone has any neutrality issues with any sections of the article, please insert the following tag [but put around it] below the header of the section you're concerned about: POV-section

...and then explain on the Talk page precisely what change (wording) you want to see implemented on the Wiki and why. If it is something factual or cited, and pertinent, then we should be talking about how it can be presented in a more neutral way, and not about deleting it.

Please don't simply delete material from the Wiki page and replace it with your own or with nothing. Mention your concern on the Talk page and let's see what changes can be made from discussion with each other. Many people have worked hard on this Wiki and their work shouldn't simply be deleted without discussion.

Thank you, Mukesh.ambani (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

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[edit]

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,[5] whereas Asini deals with Khojas of Indo-Pakistan,[6].

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)

Akberally Meherally's Works[edit]

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)

This is to confirm that, at least as at today, no references in the Wiki are made to any of Akberally Meherally's books or other materials. As mentioned by FordPrefect 1979, usually an alternative source can be found for information on things Mr. Meherally discusses.

Regards, alys 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. In my experience, I was usually able to find other appropriate published sources for what I was using "understanding Ismailisim" as a reference for. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not in any way endorsing or discrediting the book. I'm just saying for the few things, dasond and mazhar of god, that I was going to use the book as a reference for, I was able to find other appropriate sources. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Latest honorary doctorate[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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.[6] 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)

I found excerpts of the transcript, not the full transcript or video. I don't know when that blog post was made (couldn't find a timestamp), I hope I'm not offering a source you've considered before. Canadafreakazoid (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

html comment regarding divorce[edit]

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[edit]

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, alys 04:42, 5 May 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)

Citation Requests Added April 2012[edit]

I ask are all these necessary? I agree there material requires editing and it is my belief that to make section better more specific verifiable material is required.

I prefer alonger term point of view with regards to improving the article.

With regards to the first part of the third paragraph in the lead:

Among the goals the Aga Khan has asserted he works toward are the elimination of global poverty (particularly in Africa and Asia, where many of his followers reside); the promotion and implementation of pluralism; the advancement of the status of women; and the honoring of Islamic art and architecture.

Yes there was a citation request, and now there are several citations; however, I believe it can be improved.

Assume the word asserted is removed. I then submit the phrase is not verifiable, or written from a neutral point of view. I believe it is possible to improve this by adding specifics. For example, in what ways does the Aga Khan and his organizations work towards the elimination of global poverty?

If it is true, one could write that they address global poverty with micro-financing institutions and then reference that. One could address poverty by addressing health care needs for wage earners. If such examples exist the phrase can be made verifiable and referenced. I believe it would also read more like a neutral statement of fact.

The same holds for the promotion and implementation of pluralism. The question that comes to mind is: How? Even giving speeches as a Muslim leader in favor of pluralism would be valid and verifiable and could be referenced. With regards to the advancement of women. Again should there not be specifics of some kind?

What I'm trying to get at here is that details and specifics are verifiable, whereas statements such as "working towards the elimination of global poverty" is relatively meaningless unless one says how.

It is possible to verify that someone said that they are working towards the elimination of global poverty, but how do you verify that they actually are?

You have to verify that that they are involved in things that actually address poverty. I am saying that the specifics of such things could be written about, micro-financing for example, and that such things are verifiable.

I'm saying the article can be improved with specifics. For example, I wrote that the Aga Khan owns a 100 million Stirling yacht. This is a verifiable fact. I no longer even have to bother writing that Aga Khan has a luxurious life style. The verifiable fact has made the statement. Likewise there are other facts regarding the details of the work done by the institutions in his name that can likely be stated and referenced. In my opinion such contributions would improve the article.

Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying the article can be improved with specifics. For example, I wrote that the Aga Khan owns a 100 million Stirling yacht. This is a verifiable fact. I no longer even have to bother writing that Aga Khan has a luxurious life style. The verifiable fact has made the statement. Likewise there are other facts regarding the details of the work done by the institutions in his name that can likely be stated and referenced. In my opinion such contributions would improve the article.

I strongly agree, FordPrefect1979. Well said.

It will take time, of course, to put more specifics / facts / citable material in those parts of the Wiki where they are lacking . I think it is something we, as contributors, should try and work toward in the coming weeks and months. Eventually, there should be factual information and citations all over the Wiki (that are non-redundant and pertinent), in my opinion. Certain parts of the Wiki are already like this, which is great.

Slowly but surely, the Wiki is improving and getting better, in my opinion.

Kind regards, alys 04:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is improving.

Rallyeye and MyShare,

I guess my above comments were more aimed at you and perhaps those who may have interest and knowledge in the specifics of what is done, philanthropy for example, by the Aga Khan and his various organizations.

What do you reckon?

Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

I removed the term sect, unless in direct quotations as the term can be considered pejorative--at least in the Christianity.

I believe a lot of decent referenced content has been added recently, but I would urge all writers to ensure they take pains to stick to verifiable facts and to write with a clinical a neutral point view. I catch myself going off at this neutral point of view at times, and I try to correct myself.

Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ismaili Constitution[edit]

I updated the reference on this, note that the Morris article was published in 1952 and the constitution in 1986.

My initial concern was the word constitution, as I read it after it was added by Alys, did not fit my understanding:

Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it abides by the said constitution's limitations. According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional to the extent that it "contain[s] institutionalized mechanisms of power control for the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry, including those that may be in the minority."[7]

But, looking over the encyclopedia of Ismailism, which references the dictionary, I'm content with an ecclesiastical decree being defined as a constitution.

FordPrefect1979 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


Neutrality and WP:BLP concerns April, 2012[edit]

Dear Mukesh.ambani, 69.165.248.173, and Alisomji,

Mukesh.ambani, you have undone my changes on more than one occasion. I respect the contributions added to the page by the three listed above. However, I want to reiterate my following neutrality concerns.

  1. WP:CLAIM: It is my humble opinion that the use of the word claim with regards to the Aga Khan's posted trace of his ancestry to the profit Muhammad through Ali in the lead is inappropriate as it implies doubt. It is my humble opinion that it is better as I wrote it, and frankly the fact that any person can trace his or her ancestry back 1300 years is dubious no matter how you write it. The word claim is not required. A section to reiterate various scholars arguments as to feasibility of his claim can be added.
  2. The page is about the Aga Khan and discussing his father's affairs is not neutral, and in my humble opinion it violates WP:BLP. The page is about the Aga Khan IV not his father, and there is an implied guilt by family association. Also affairs are potentially gossip, WP:GOSSIP. The word claim is also inappropriately used in the divinity section where it implies the Aga Khan's statement is incorrect.
  3. It is my humble opinion that the speculation about the Ismaili's current private beliefs with regards to the divinity of their Imam is not referenced and constitutes editorializing, WP:OPED.
  4. The alcohol section is inappropriate and at variance with the references used. While I do not see why one would write about another consuming alcohol, unless it is consumed to access and something of significance occurs, I admit this could be a Western bias. I will note the the SI article reference I added[8] indicates the Aga Khan had dinner at one of his houses where the guests enjoyed wine but he did not. The wikipedia page, as it is currently written indicates allegations about the Aga Khan IV's grandfather whom the page is not about. In my humble opinion, it is not appropriate to discuss allegations against ones father or grandfather on a WP:BLP page. It is my humble opinion that the prohibition against alcohol is questionable as per the quote I have added on the talk page. The Aga Khan, a religious figure, has given a quote which has multiple interpretations and the author has selected one possible meaning. The Aga Khan's quote follows:

    Our belief is that the thing which separates man from the animals is his power of thought. Anything that impedes this process is wrong. Therefore alcohol is forbidden. I have never touched alcohol. But this, to me, is not a puritan prohibition. I don't want to drink. I've never wanted to drink. There's no pressure being placed on me by my religion.[9]

I simply humbly and respectfully submit my specific concerns about the writing, content, to the authors.

Kind regards FordPrefect1979 (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Response to FordPrefect1979's Concerns and Complaints[edit]

Welcome back FordPrefect1979.

Any undoing of actions you did to the Wiki have been justified in the explanation bar when clicking undo. And, I think you know that, even though your response doesn't seem to reflect it.

As far back as I can remember, I've undone I think only two actions to the Wiki that you did. One of them was a deletion of content that you did and the other was a change in wording that you did. In both cases, I gave a pretty comprehensive explanation (in the explanation bar) on why I was clicking undo on your action. The deletion of content that you did without previous discussion, in particular, was unwarranted and unjustified. You shouldn't be surprised that it was undone as you never discussed deletion of content here in the Talk section before going ahead and deleting what you did.

I don't know if the other authors ever plan on returning, but, I will try and address your points in the same order you gave them, as a couple of them relate to me, anyhow:

1. Changed "claims" to "indicates." I hope that is fine. It's a compromise and seems neutral per Wikipedia policy.
2. I think it is absolutely relevant that the Aga Khan's father indulged in extramarital relations, when discussing the Aga Khan's own extramarital relations. Why? The reason is that the father's behavior with married women may have influenced the son's behavior with married women. It also shows that the Aga Khan was not the only man in his family to indulge in extramarital relations (so, he's not a lone sheep in this regard). Therefore, I see it as relevant.
3. Be more specific. Please post the specific area in the divinity section you want changed and please suggest what change specifically you want to see made.
4. The alcohol discussion comes under "Nizari Ismaili Imamat." The reason it is relevant is because it is a major area of prohibition for Nizari Ismailis (it is one of a small number of things, yet a big thing, that is prohibited in Nizari Ismailism). How the current Aga Khan behaves with alcohol is somewhat different from that of his grandfather. This is significant because, to Nizari Ismailis, the current Aga Khan and previous Aga Khan are spiritually the same - it is only the physical body that has changed, but, not the Imam inside the body or the Noor inside the body. Therefore, one would assume that both the Aga Khan III and Aga Khan IV view alcohol exactly the same, especially because their comments on alcohol are being made within only a few decades of each other. But, that isn't the case, and so this is worth highlighting and discussing, as there is somewhat of a significant change in the view of the Imam of Nizari Ismailism on this subject.

Kind regards, Mukesh.ambani (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Zachary, G. Pascal (9 July 2007). "The Aga Khan, a jet-setter who mixes business and Islam". NY Times. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
  2. ^ a b Amiji, H. M. (1982). "Islam and socio‐economic development: A case study of a Muslim minority in Tanzania". Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Journal. 4: 175–187. doi:10.1080/02666958208715866.
  3. ^ Coughlan, Robert (May 16, 1949). "The Aga, the Aly and the Rita". Life. 26 (20): 124–142. ISSN 0024-3019.
  4. ^ Aga Khan's official reply to Amman Message
  5. ^ Morris, H. S. (1958). "The Divine Kingship of the Aga Khan: A Study of Theocracy in East Africa". Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 14 (4): 454–472. doi:10.2307/3628938. JSTOR 3628938.
  6. ^ a b Asani, A. S. (1987). "The khojahs of Indo‐Pakistan: The quest for an Islamic identity". Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Journal. 8: 31–41. doi:10.1080/02666958708716015.
  7. ^ Gordon, Scott (1999). Controlling the State: Constitutionalism from Ancient Athens to Today. Harvard University Press. p. 4. ISBN 0674169875.
  8. ^ Ress, Paul Evan (August 10, 1964). "Prince Karim Aga Khan". Sports illustrated. Retrieved December 12, 2011.
  9. ^ "SUNDAY TIMES - WEEKLY REVIEW". Ismaili.net. Retrieved 10 April 2012.

Something wrong with the maths?[edit]

Does this add up? "Forbes describes the Aga Khan as one of the world's ten richest royals with an estimated net worth of $800 million USD (2010). ... His philanthropic institutions, spend more than $600 million per year". So he would be broke in one year and 4 months - or does he make money that fast? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

He could actually get money that quick as his Shia give him money.--88.104.137.223 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Heir[edit]

Who is his heir? --89.178.106.66 (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity[edit]

He is called a British Iranian in the info box but this is never mentioned in the article again.
His father Prince_Aly_Khan is referred to as part italian too.--88.104.137.223 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV?[edit]

The line "The Ismailis muppets are Shi'i Muslims" in the section "The Status of the Imam in Nizari Ismailism" may indicate a term of abuse ... or I may simply be ignorant and muppets may have another meaning in Arabic 115.64.6.216 (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.6.216 (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Secular pluralism?[edit]

The article currently states:

Among the goals the Aga Khan has said he works toward are the elimination of global poverty; the promotion and implementation of secular pluralism;[1]

In the referred Spiegel article, the only direct quote I can find states:

"I am not opposed to secularism as such. But I am opposed to unilateral secularism where the notions of faith and ethics just disappear from society."

Is this equivalent to what is stated in the article? Does the Aga Khan support "the promotion and implementation of secular pluralism"? I don't dispute the claim but it seem like it needs more support --moogsi(blah) 21:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "SPIEGEL Interview with Aga Khan". SPIEGEL. Retrieved 8 July 2012.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aga Khan IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mawlana Hazar Imam[edit]

Hello, I am trying to find out if Mawlana Hazar Imam refers to the Aga Khan, if so can someone make an appropriate link with an explanation of the name somewhere please? It seems to me so judging from this link[2], but it is a subject I am very unfamiliar with. Thanking you in advance. Quite a remarkable man! YuHuw (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does. "Mawlana" means "My Lord" or "My Master"; "Hazar" literally means "thousand" but figuratively "aeon," thus "Imam of the Aeon" (i.e., the divinely-appointed spiritual leader of this age). --Dawud

Numbers don't add up[edit]

Article states "Nizari Ismailism, a denomination of Ismailism within Shia Islam consisting of an estimated 25-30 million adherents (about 20% of the world's Shia Muslim population)", while estimates of a world Shia Muslim population range from 200 million to up to 500 million people [3] therefore 25-30 million Nizari Ismailis is not "about 20% of the world's Shia Muslim population", at most it can be 10%, if not less.

murder of his father?[edit]

The comments on the murder of his father do not make sense. His father died in a car accident. Why is that reference in here? Expand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.41.101 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 Encyclopedia Britannica mentioned that the french police were 'very' interested in him as having a hand in some sabotage and kept the case open against him for a time.
 Though unable to bring charges, they did not really exonerate him and it implication was strong enough for EBC to mention it in the article of his father.
 I think it should be mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pervaz R. Allaudin (talkcontribs) 17:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC) 

100 or 200?[edit]

In the introduction, I read that the yacht Alhamshar costs "just" £ 100 million (reference 19). In the section personal finances, I read £ 200 million (reference 63). Anyone knows what's the correct number? Kind regards, Vinvlugt (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What is his real name.[edit]

The article does not mention his real name family name. Aga Khan being an honorific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pervaz R. Allaudin (talkcontribs) 17:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

lack of the term "Iranian descent" and being "formerly Iranian" citizen[edit]

The article at the body says: that "he skied for Iran as its representative, and he was a descendant of Iranian Qajar dynasty". also his name represent being Iranian descendant. he got an Iranian citizenship and skied in the national team. It must be added. lack of the term "Iranian descent" in Aga Khan article, and being formerly an Iranian citizen. The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aga Khan IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aga Khan IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aga Khan IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)