Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi/Archive 2

Name calling

ORIGNAL NAME "GOBAR SHAHI" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.181.108.108 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In Hindi, Gobar means dung. Esowteric+Talk 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's awfully disruptive, nonconstructive and abusive. Please do not write such abusive things.-- NY7 ☆ 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Long-running content disputes

For weeks now, most of the articles involving Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and Younus AlGohar have been the subject of a slow edit war with several editors spending most of their time undoing other editors' edits. This has also spread in a minor way to the general article on Sufism.

Articles involved include:

• Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi
• Messiah Foundation International
• Younus AlGohar
• RAGS International
• The Representative of Gohar Shahi
• The Representative of Imam Mehdi
• Sufism

For details, see the articles' histories.

There is a dispute as to whether Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi actually died, disappeared, or went into "occultation". I haven't been able to find reliable sources about his death. Hence, edits have involved removing and adding details of death (with possible BLP implications).

There is a dispute over Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi's legitimacy and over the legitimacy of present organizations, and representatives or successors.

As many of his followers believe that he is/was the Mahdi or a messiah, there were attempts to change pages redirecting to Mahdi to redirects to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

These disputes have also split over onto talk pages.

Your comments and proposals on how to resolve these thorny issues would be appreciated. Can the issues be solved informally, or does the matter need to go to some kind of formal dispute resolution process? Esowteric+Talk 11:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is a no dispute whether Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi actually died, disappeared, or went into "occultation". We believe that he went into Occultation on 25th November 2001. The only organization HE founded was Anjuman Serfroshan-e-Islam and not MFI. Younus has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi, younus is using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi for his ill-deeds. Through,RAGS International, The Representative of Gohar Shahi & Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, younus and his companion are using Wikipedia for self promotion of his self-made teachings. So, my point of view is that Younus should stopped on this stage, he shouldn't allow to use wikipedia for his ill-deeds.--Falconkhe (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• With respect, I was looking for a reliable source, such as an obituary or academic source stating that RAGS died in Manchester on such-and-such a date, of pneumonia (or for that matter that he has simply disappeared, whereabouts unknown), not "We believe ...". If there is no dispute, then why are the article histories littered with edit differences like this? Esowteric+Talk 13:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article is clearly in the middle of an edit war, which seems to be focused around the section "Claims of Mehdihood". Editors please stop reverting each other and put your arguments for and against the contested change here on this talk page.--JN466 13:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I'd just like to mention that I'm really glad that a dispute resolution has been raised. Falconkhe, there is clearly dispute regarding Shahi's death or "disappearance" on the internet. I advised you to correct Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi as it was lacking information that was provided on the internet, and let me remind you Wikipedia is not about what you believe, its about what people think about and what information has been provided regarding a certain issue on the internet. You were told to bring about a reputable source that stated that Shahi had died, however, I found sources that said that Shahi had "disappeared" and has not died, and believers think this to be a fulfilment of a prophecy of the Mehdi.

I just think that the information that is provided on the internet should all be on Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, because Wikipedia shows all angels of a certain topic, and Faclonkhe, who claims to be a follower of Shahi, is obviously only providing bias and one-sided information, whereas two or three editors, including me are striving to bring this article to justice, and when I do so, I am accused (by Faclonkhe) to be "emotionally" attached to AlGohar, which I obviously am not.

I personally think that this article should include everything regarding Him that is available on the net, it should be able to mention what people actually think about him as a whole. For example, the issue of his 'Mehdi-hood', that seems to be a great issue over him on the internet, and if you see the original context of this article (formed by Falconkhe) it doesn't seem to mention it at all, and just mentions 'Shahi denied such accusations'. This article has obviously not been doing justice to its potential, and I am just trying to bring this article to its best and to its utmost justifiable state.

Thanks-- NY7 ☆ 13:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• With all due respect to all parties, and let me stress that I'm only recently involved and do not know much of the history of this, but my impression is that there's some conflict of interest on both sides of the discussion, the talk pages seem pretty emotional. Nuujinn (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned there seems to be two groups following Shahi. One group believes Shahi to be the Mehdi (the same group following Younus AlGohar) and one group believes him to be a Muslim Sufi. I added the subsection "Claims of Mehdihood" to "Claims and criticisms" because I thought it was important to note, as it is one of the most controversial claims surrounding RAGS. I thought it would help give a better overall view of RAGS and the issues surrounding him and his disciples. What I actually did was reorganize the section so that all the controversy relating to Shahi's claimed Mehdihood would be in one section and the rest would be in another see here. Its not really a problem if others want to keep the subsection out, but when my edits got reverted, my copyediting and addition of references got reverted as well. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a BLP or not?

The latest edit has made the article an unmarked BLP. Can we have a ruling as to whether or not this is a BLP in the absence of a reliable source giving details of RAGS' death, please? Esowteric+Talk 13:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Have added a request to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi to hopefully obtain a ruling. Esowteric+Talk 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from the BLP noticeboard.

Unless there is a wikipedia reliable citation for death or he was born what beyond the reasonable term of maximum life expectancy is, the article should be treated as a Biography of a living person. (there is a specific number of years but it slips my mind) Without a clear reliable citation for his death any date should not be included at all. the most we could do if there are reliable citations commenting that he may of died we could add a comment about that but as unconfirmed reports or something like that and until there is a reliable report the article should be treated as if it is a BLP and as such content added to it about controversial issues such as his unconfirmed death would require exceptional quality sources. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. With a birth date of 1941 and no reliable source about his death, will treat as a WP:BLP. Have added the category Living people to the article and living=yes to the talk page wikiproject biography. Esowteric+Talk 14:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, as a disinterested observer who isn't a member of any related religion, this edit war has reached the absurd. "No debate" regarding whether RAGS has gone into a non-death mystic state of occultation? I don't object to people having various beliefs, but I do object to the various editors refusing to understand that the difference between "any reasonable person would agree that" and "we believe the following and we are right dangit!". Further, several editors have, regarding Younas, continually made the ridiculously non-WP argument "this notable person is a bad man, and therefore does not deserve an article", and completely, steadfastly, consistently refusing to understand that the article won't be deleted just because they don't like someone. It doesn't matter if Person X ate live babies for lunch, if he meets WP:NOTABILITY his article should not be deleted, period. I've actually mostly removed myself from this dispute since it ate up far too much of my time for an article series getting under 1,000 views a month, but personally I submit that the current debate has became very non-WP. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very involved in the content disputes, and I admit I am not without my biases regarding RAGS. However, I think its very important to have cited information about him, regardless of whether the claims made about him are positive or negative. In regards to the issue of RAG's disappearance/death, I agree that the article should be treated as a BLP. I think that until an extremely reliable source mentions the death of Shahi and how he died, it should be mentioned that his whereabouts are unknown. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very pleased that administrators of wikipedia raised this issue. Though, disappearance of Gohar Shahi (GS) is very weak here as no reference has been provided, that's why CN tag is there. But this is fact that MFI is a self-made cult, which was formed by Younus and not GS. The major dispute is that Omi and Nasiryounus are clearly associated with Younus and it is proved through their contributions to WP, they are lying that they don't belong to Younus. Younus was kicked-out from ASI by GS in late 2000 when GS was resident of Manchester, to take revenge from GS younus formed MFI and started defaming GS, soon after disappearance of GS. The major issue here is followers of younus (This could be younus himself) using WP to promote themselves. GS formed ASI not MFI the reference has been provided in this regard. I hope administrator of WP would stop them to defame GS at least on WP. Because Younus is presenting teaching which are contrary to the teaching of GS and younus is using the name & pictures of GS in order to defame him. Should you require any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks--Spiritualism (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• yeah, that's right Omi and Nasiryounus are continuously violating wikipedia and they are involved in promoting younus and MFI. They belong to younus and its prooved from their contribution to wikipedia.I agree to user Spiritualism.--Your Message (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Judging by the article history for 9 March 2010, we are very close to an edit war. I'd advise contributors to familiarize themselves with, and abide by, the 3 revert rule in order to avoid administrative sanctions. I'm not an admin and this isn't a threat, just an observation. Esowteric+Talk 09:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see today's edit history of Messiah Foundation International. Another single use account has now been created, too. Esowteric+Talk 10:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm really tired of being associated with either MFI or AlGohar. Please stop! And all the accusations you place on either AlGohar, MFI or Shahi has all got to be proven, as you continuously make fruitless discussions and claims that end nowhere at all!-- NY7 ☆ 13:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Messiah Foundation International & Younus AlGohar have been fully protected for 2 weeks due to edit warring. — Scientizzle 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

I'm concerned that sockpuppets are being used here and at other articles. See the section "Possible sock puppetry" below. Esowteric+Talk 10:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Disappearance section

This section needs sorting out asap, if anyone wants to keep it, perhaps trimming back to a simple statement cited somewhere or the whole thing cited. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some research and there are a lot of different reports about Shahi's alleged death. {http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/topstories/4645892.Croydon_religious_leader_faces_life_in_Pakistani_jail_for_his_beliefs/ The Guardian} mentions that "Gohar Shahi, who claimed to have met Jesus, is reported to have died in 2003. Mr Algohar said he merely disappeared." and this claims that Shahi was murdered in a Pakistani jail (I don't know about this one, as Shahi had allegedly fled to the UK).This report on MFI by UNHCR states, 'According to a January 2006 article by The Sunday Telegraph, though, Gohar Shahi died in 2003 (“three years ago”, The Sunday Telegraph, 15 January 2006), whereas 'the news agency Pakistan Press International (PPI) reports in December 2001 on the burial of Gohar Shahi,“Spiritual figure and founder of Anjuman-e-Sarfarooshan-e-Islam International”, on 12 December 2001 (PPI, 8 December 2001)'. In the same report it states 'In November 2008, the Indian news agency PTI reports on the MFI as“a multi-faith spiritual organisation that promoted the doctrine of divine love since 1980. The organisation was headed by Ra Riaz Gohar Shahi, who had fled the country and is presently based in United Kingdom (UK) after Sindh High Court sentenced him to life imprisonment on charges of blasphemy.” (PTI, 20 November 2008)'. It seems the news agencies are just as confused as the rest, which is why I've come to the conclusion that Shahi's whereabouts are relatively unknown. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done, I am busy to read the citations, that the bulls horns and write a simple section that is cited, the one about murdered in jail is not reliable....yes? The gardian is ok but all there is is ..

Mr Algohar, who claims he can heal people of incurable diseases, follows the teachings of Gohar Shahi, who he met in Pakistan 20 years ago.Gohar Shahi, who claimed to have met Jesus, is reported to have died in 2003. Mr Algohar said he merely disappeared ...this could be added but not really, it is very weak indeed and the red cross PDF is also little value. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its weak, but its better than nothing I suppose...Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 01:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• May I correct you Gohar Shahi died on 25 November, 2001.--Your Message (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." See WP:VERIFY. Esowteric+Talk 09:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

With a birth year of 1941 and no reliable sources concerning the death, we have been advised that the subject should be treated as a biography of living persons, until we know for certain whether or not he has died. Esowteric+Talk 10:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No dispute / why haven't you tagged

The artiles are:

• Messiah Foundation International
• Younus AlGohar

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is not disputed at all. Why don't you put tags on Messiah Foundation International & Younus AlGohar, because they are disputed.--Your Message (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that is ridiculous. Proof that there are disputes and edit wars is self-evident in the RAGS article history for today alone. Esowteric+Talk 10:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It means you are not neutral editor of wikipedia, who can't see poor articles like Messiah Foundation International & Younus AlGohar and tagging an article, which is establish on wikipedia.--Your Message (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that there is trouble with several articles. I'm the one who brought about this RFC about editors' actions in all those articles. Also see today's edit history of Messiah Foundation International. This is just by way of example. Esowteric+Talk 10:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW its not justify your claim remove tag from this article or tag Messiah Foundation International & Younus AlGohar articles as well.--Your Message (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The blp dispute tag is there for a specific purpose: to note that as we do not have a reliable source about Shahi's death, the subject should be treated as a living person and uncited details of death (etc) should not be re-introduced. It also puts the article in an administrative category, with the hope that administrators will see this, take a look at the dispute involving several editors and several articles (including Younas and MFI) and perhaps take action. If you have legitimate grievances about the other articles, then tag those articles appropriately. I am not an administrator, just another wikipedia editor. Esowteric+Talk 11:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes which lists the articles involved. Esowteric+Talk 11:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But you don't bother to tag all articles involved you tag only this article?--Your Message (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which specific tags did you have in mind and what is your reasoning? Esowteric+Talk 11:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am pointing out the tag of BLP dispute on this. Why you put this tag on this article?--Your Message (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] Because for months we've had a very piecemeal approach to conflict resolution involving single incidents. This is an attempt to centralize conflict resolution and sort it out once and for all. Esowteric+Talk 11:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But why you tag only to this article, kindly remove tag immediately.--Spiritualism (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Messiah Foundation International now has a factual accuracy tag and already has a refimprove tag; Younus AlGohar already has a refimprove tag ... Though I'm sure that within minutes these will be removed. Esowteric+Talk 11:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to remove tag on this article, I want to say this is not fair remove this tag from this article immediately as this article is not disputed nor RAGS is in this mortal world any more, he disappeared on 25th November, 2001. His body was brought back to Pakistan and his tomb is in Kotri Shairf. Therefore, you are requested to remove this tag as soon as possible. Regards--Spiritualism (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

These things are disputed, as evidenced by the weeks-long edit warring. Therefore there are disputes. Therefore we have the tag. What we need is a verifiable and reliable source that states whether he died, disappeared or went into Occultation. Esowteric+Talk 11:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Until then, we have been advised to treat the subject as a WP:BLP and treat the subject especially carefully. Esowteric+Talk 11:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read reference thoroughly you find reference # 9, which clearly states about disappearance of Gohar Shahi. The reference has been taken from | Dawn Newspaper, which is highly reputed in Pakistan. What else you needed, remove this tag immediately.--Spiritualism (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies. Assuming that This at Dawn newspaper is a reliable source, have removed the blp dispute tag and replaced it with a factual accuracy tag. Esowteric+Talk 12:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Esowteric, I'm not targeting you, but just to mention, Spiritualism has forwarded one article that seems to say that Shahi has died, whereas various news agencies (reputable) have either mentioned that Shahi died in 2003, 2005, is alive in London or is missing. So what reputability does one article hold in this context, hence I advise that the BLP tag be reinstated, and I'm not quite sure why either of these IDs are being so offensive, it's not as if you own this article, this article is public domain, and its there for the public to gain information out of, and you haven't even provided the correct information (according to the internet) there are various beliefs and views regarding Shahi, and all of them need to be shown here, you are however depicting only your own opinion.-- NY7 ☆ 12:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, my apologies. All I'm really interested in here is not taking sides but rather highlighting and hopefully resolving the long-running edit wars. The way things are going (with possible WP:COI and WP:3RR), the article/s could end up locked or editors may even end up with topic bans. Esowteric+Talk 13:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

See, I'm trying to bring a better side of the article to the public eye, there's much more regarding the subject which these editors haven't put up, and I'd like to do that, after all, reader should know what EVERYBODY think about the subject. You're however looking at the ugly side (edit-war) of the article, which I agree is quite a headache, and I apologize for what it has come to, but I'd like to see this article justifiably finished (including the no edit-wars, that you'd like too). And you definitely don't have to apologize. Thanks NY7 ☆ 13:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cllaimed uncited death

Who is still adding this stuff? It needs to stop immediatelly, do not reinsert t without citations. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

removed content...

Gohar Shahi departed on 25 November 2001, in Manchester, UK, of pneumonia. Shahi's body was brought back to Pakistan from England and buried in Markazi Aastana at Kotri, where the International Secretariat of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam is located. His devotees perform pilgrimage to his mausoleum. The term for the demise of Gohar Shahi is used as "occultation", instead of death, and no urs celebration is held, which is a common tradition of all Sufis. Gohar Shahi's family still resides in Kotri, including his widow, five sons and a daughter.

• Why you removed whole section from this article? A reference is already provided to support claim.--Spiritualism (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What are all these citation required templates for then? Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. Spiritualism (talk) pointed me toward this article in Dawn newspaper. It doesn't mention any details but does assert that he died. Thinking this may be a reliable source, I removed the blp dispute tag and replaced it with a factual accuracy tag. It does not support any content concerning details of death or burial. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 12:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Dawn newspaper: "Having read so far, assuming all to be well, I inquired what was the problem and where was Goharshahi. I was told he had left for his heavenly abode whilst travelling abroad and his mortal remains had been transported back, buried at his home in Kotri, but that his soul goes marching on. Another John Brown, I remarked. They were not amused." Esowteric+Talk 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This can not be used to claim death with a date in his infobox and all, if you were to insert it, it could be in a section, controversies surrounding dissapearance, or something and would need to be attributed to the actual person that wrote it or claimed it, personally it looks very weak to me and I wouldn't bother inserting it at all, if there are multiple reliable sources with claims of similar death reports and burials then a small section perhaps. Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I took out my personal time to edit this article, so that a broader article was placed to the public eye, which Spiritualism (aka Falconkhe, Truefigter etc) keeps on reverting, and his version of the article is very much restricted to his personal opinion. I took the time to do some research over the internet, and placed all the references I could find, so as to make the article reliable, more justifiable and brought out more of the true facts regarding the subject. Come on, please somebody see through this matter seriously and deeply, this guys really not doing justice to the article. The article shouldn't broadcast his opinions, the article should depict the common thought and various ideas regarding the subject, which the article isn't doing at all at the moment.-- NY7 ☆ 12:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing tag from this article but I am sorry to learn that another has been tagged on this article and a whole section has been removed without consultation, though a reliable reference was also provided to support claimes. I would say further this article is not disputed, disputed articles are Messiah Foundation International & Younus AlGohar. They are sourced from self-published websites, if you want to take any action againt above mentioned articles, I am with you.--116.71.4.8 (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have some support for Nasir's position there. http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020210.htm would not be a reliable source for a death date anyway, this article needs to get real, report the details of the reliable sources and that is that, the to-ing and fro-ing needs to stop...simple article, no fluff, no uncited claims..easy, this article is one step away from being locked completely until both sides come to a consensus, which could take a while. The main issue is that unless there is a reliable citation then we can't report his death.Off2riorob (talk)
  • Exactly, and 116.71.4.8, all articles, including Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar and Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi are disputed because you keep removing information, tagging them with unnecessary tags and then keep adding irrelevant information onto this article. I agree with Off2riorob.-- NY7 ☆ 12:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Disappearance

Gohar Shahi was reported to have "mysteriously" disappeared on 27 November 2001, in London, UK, which followers took to be similar to occultation. Rumors regarding the disappearance spread, and while some thought he had died, some of his followers believe that he is to return soon, according to the prophecies of the Mehdi. Followers parted into two organizations after the alleged disappearance, one remained to be Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, whilst Younus AlGohar, a disciple of Shahi who has said that Shahi merely disappeared "Croydon religious leader faces life in Pakistani jail for his beliefs". Your Local Guardian. September 30, 2009. Retrieved March 6, 2010. formed Messiah Foundation International, claiming to be under the guidance of Shahi. This group of followers deny the demise of Shahi, and relay his apparent warning prior to the disappearance that he'd disappear one day but that he would return. International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, assuming he had died, built a tomb for him at the Markazi Aastana in Kotri, where devotees perform pilgrimage to the building. Gohar Shahi's family still resides in Kotri, including his wife, five sons and a daughter.

• Replaced. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks to Off2riorob and to other contributors here for your time and all your constructive efforts. Esowteric+Talk 15:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks-- NY7 ☆ 16:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have tidied the citations and removed the request for protection. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, well done. --JN466 22:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I as well applaud you..thanks. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Stability

• A good article is a stable article, if you want to change anything then please first try leaving a comment here presenting your desired edit and then waiting say eight hours to see if there is support for the change, this will stop the disruptive constant reverting of the article.

I have tidied all the citations, one was a geocities that was dead and unable to be found, so that needs a new cite although it is nothing controversial, there is one geocities left, these are not reliable and should also be replaced, there are not enough independent citations, many appear to be linked to the subjects organizations and there are three or four links to Dawn, it would be better to have a few citations from here and there independant reports but I think there is not much global coverage, anyway, not I have opened them up it is easier to see where they link to and from when. It is not so important for non controversial content but for anything out of the ordinary a quality supporting citation is required.

• There are two many pictures of similar things, Shahi gives talk here and pic of Shahi gives talk here, I have removed two or three of the similar type of Shahi talking type, the article was bloated with pictures which was disrupting the written content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I edited the article to include broader information regarding Shahi, and its related subjects (e.g. Younus AlGohar, who is thought to be representative to Shahi and the MFI which he is the co-founder of) and they are cited well. The article that is presently up, now mentions AlGohar and the MFI, but doesn't speak about Shahi's much globally controversial issue regarding His "Mehdi-hood", which I have also covered. I just need to edit and add information here and there which will go hand-in-hand with the information presently provided. NY7 ☆ 20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at your last edit and thought some of it a bit weasely changing little emphasis here asnd there, this article is not about Youniss it is Shahi's article, present your desired additions and changes here so we can have a look at them. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In your last edit you changed this...

In February 2002 prior to any decision on appeals filed with the High Court of Sindh , Ardeshir Cowasjee claimed in an article he wrote in Dawn the Pakistani newspaper that unnamed people that he said identified themselves to him as office-bearers of the All-Faith Spiritual Movement told him that Gohar Shahi died abroad, this report was unconfirmed.

to this....

Gohar Shahi disappeared abroad, prior to any decision on appeals filed with the High Court of Sindh.

why is that? Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't change that in any of my edits. I don't even know what that's actually about. And secondly, I never said this article was about Younus AlGohar, in my last edits, I added information regarding Shahi's matter of 'Mehdi-hood', where in any of that did it mention AlGohar in any way. Just because the original editors of this article said I am associated to AlGohar, when I've continuously said I'm not, doesn't mean you can too say I'm somehow advertising him or this organization in any way. This article keeps no personal emotional or material attachment to me, and I'd not care what the end of this article would be, I am trying to be a contributive and truthful editor, and the editors of this article have not provided the complete information, which is all on the internet. I mean, AlGohar formed a whole organization saying that Shahi is the 'Mehdi', and this article mentions this claim ONCE. I'm sure there must be more to it. Look into this matter with no biases and balances, please. NY7 ☆ 21:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nasiryounus: "I didn't change that in any of my edits. I don't even know what that's actually about."

• This edit difference shows that you did make this change. Esowteric+Talk 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't make this change. I reverted an edit that one of the editors made, and this edit was included. My edit had been outdated and this came through too. If I personally saw the line "disappeared abroad", I would've changed it to something more appropriate anyway.-- NY7 ☆ 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I know whats up with this edit. If you look at the first version of the article here, you'd see that the sentence first said "Gohar Shahi died abroad"- perhaps Nasir made "his version" from this page, thus making it outdated so it didn't include the newer edits from Off2riirob. Nasir, you should be more careful about including others' edits before saying "this is the full version". Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, and I apologize. NY7 ☆ 22:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A minor(?) change

Okay before I went ahead and made this edit I wanted to see if anyone has any objections. I wanted to change

"Gohar Shahi was in favor of divine love and considers it most important for an approach to God and no discrimination of caste, creed, nation or religion is accepted for Divine Love of God as every human has been gifted with an ability to develop spiritual power to approach to the essence of God.[citation needed]" to "Gohar Shahi favors divine love and considers it most important to approach God without discrimination of caste, creed, nation or religion, as, according to him, every human has been gifted with an ability to develop spiritual power to approach to the essence of God."

I also wanted to do add "In addition, MFI considers Shahi to be the founder of the Goharian Philosophy of Divine Love, a set of principles the organization is based on. The magazine authored by Shahi, Hatif-e-Mehdi was banned in Pakistan for allegedly containing material offensive to the religious feelings of Muslims there. " to the Literary Works section. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 22:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this being added to the article, as it creates a broader view regarding him recently.-- NY7 ☆ 22:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. Nuujinn (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This does look good and beneficial to the article, it appears to also add two or three new citations covering content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced it- but I realized that this was the first time MFI was mentioned in the article, so I changed MFI to "Messiah Foundation International". I hope thats okay- the rest of it is exactly the same though. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 23:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The only issue is I don't think wiki quote links are supposed to be used in that way, its not desperate as the content is not controversial but it would be nice it we could find some independent citations. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What about citing one of his books? His book, "The Religion of God" has been on Wikisource for a while now...The problem with it is, although the whole book pretty much says the same thing as the quote, I don't think that exact quote is in the book. This page, though, sort of said the same thing (i.e one quote says "Any individual who is sincerely searching for God, on land or in the sea is also worthy of respect."), but I don't know...Either way this whole sentence about his beliefs was in "Claims and criticisms"- I don't know if it really belongs there anyway. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What about move it to the lede and not cite it at all, it is his basic belief and in his book and basically indisputable Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Central to his beliefs and teachings is the concept of divine love and non discriminatory approach to God regarding caste, creed, nation or religion. According to Shahi, every human has been gifted with an ability to develop spiritual power to approach to the essence of God. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I like this better- it has the flow the last sentence was lacking :). Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be ok for the lede, it is indisputable his basic belief and from his own comments, let it wait a few hours and if there is more support or at least no opposition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done ok, well done. I quite like it. I am signing off, take your time and allow discussion, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh...sorry, I already added it to the intro, but I guess if anyone has any issues with it they can always revert it and add their concerns here. Thanks for your help. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently User:Falconkhe does not agree with the addition of the information to 'Literary Works. He mentions in his edit summary that "Hatif-e-Mehdi is a publication of MFI and MFI & Younus don't belong to Gohar Shahi", but according to the Pakistani Press Foundation. "The federal interior ministry has issued strict directives to Sindh government to seize and forfeit the monthly magazines “Hatif-e-Mehdi” and “The voice of Mehdi,” authored by banned Gohar Shahi". Falconkhe, could you please comment on this? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• this is looking for a citation

Gohar Shahi was reported to have "mysteriously" disappeared on 27 November 2001, in London, UK, which some followers took to be similar to occultation. Rumors regarding the disappearance spread, and while some thought he had died, some followers believe that he is to return soon, according to the prophecies of the Mehdi. this is looking for a citation and a quote to support that his wife is living in that location. If these can be cited the citations required template could then be removed from that section. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the newspaper reports I found only mentioned the year, not the actual date of his alleged disappearance/death (and even those were not consistent). For the second sentence, would it be acceptable to cite the websites of his followers who believe this? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If we have an independent citation reporting the disappearance and they only cite the year or most of them cite the same year chose the strongest most international one lets go with that and remove the exact date, if the exact date is unciteable it should go anyway, the website of his followers would be enough to cite his wifes living there no problem imo. Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay so I've looked through GoharShahi.pk, The AllFaith.com, and [www.theawaitedone.com TheAwaitedOne.com]- and none of them mention the whereabouts of Shahi's wife or family. I thought the best bet would be to check out GoharShahi.net (The official website of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Safroshan-e-Islam, which is based in Pakistan and would be likely to know if Shahi's wife is there) but its in Urdu script, which I cannot read. In regards to the disappearance/death of Shahi, I thought the pdf report by the UNHCR summed up the different claims about Shahi's disappearance/death...but that still leaves us at square one. I wonder if it would be appropriate to contact the various newspaper agencies about the report on Shahi's disappearance/death and ask them how they came to their conclusions about him? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Literary Works section needs some fixing regarding the text and spellings, e.g. منارا نور translated is 'Minaret of Noor (Divine Light)', whereas it says 'Minart of Noor', which is really not a word. NY7 ☆ 01:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me- but since the books were originally written in Urdu script, take extra care in getting the spelling of that bit right. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 01:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I will. -- NY7 ☆ 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree to this edit of yours where you removed "Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi" from his alternative name. I believe "Sayyedna" is an honorific akin to "His Holiness". Does anyone know if these sort of titles are meant to be included? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If its a commonly used name and as lot of people know him by it then put it in why not, especially if it will upset the other side and cause instability in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true too...good point :). Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 07:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hatif-e-Mehdi is a publication of MFI and MFI & Younus don't belong to Gohar Shahi. Kindly refrain from editing about MFI & Younus in this article.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the Pakistani Press Foundation. "The federal interior ministry has issued strict directives to Sindh government to seize and forfeit the monthly magazines “Hatif-e-Mehdi” and “The voice of Mehdi,” authored by banned Gohar Shahi". Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Future edits after Off2riorob's intervention

It hasn't happened yet, but I'd suggest that any changes from now on take Off2riorob's sorted and tidied version as our base point and work on that.

Pasting in "new, improved" versions of the whole article based on earlier, disputed attempts is not a good idea, imo, as it will undo a lot of hard work and perhaps lead to further edit wars.

It's great to see the recent discussion of proposed changes :)

Just a thought, Esowteric+Talk 09:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And a very good thought at that. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• But still I don't think that Younus & MFI should be in this article.--Spiritualism (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

I'm concerned about the possible use of sock puppets in this and related articles. I have some edit differences which use the same phrases, such as "Stop preaching self-made teachings" and "Xyz you are again lying", but I'm not sure if it is permissible or desirable to add these here.

Advice, please. Esowteric+Talk 10:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about this discussion being relevant to this page, exactly, but I agree I've had my suspicions about sockpuppets (not to mention allegations as well). I too would appreciate some advice on where to take this matter. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with above as I am sure that Omirocksthisworld using many IDs to violate wikipedia.--Your Message (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've filed a report + checkuser. You can find it here:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe. Esowteric+Talk 11:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Truefighter (re. the talk page message you left for me). If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please present it. I've been studying the way of the Sufi since 1986 and favour no editor here in particular: I can only go on the evidence presented to me and try to act in the best interests of Wikipedia. Please feel free to present evidence in your defence on the investigation talk page: this is an opportunity for you to do what's best. Esowteric+Talk 11:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Truefighter has raised a counter-suit here:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nasiryounus Esowteric+Talk 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left my comments on the noticeboard. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 12:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

As per User:Truefighter's request for me to explain my reverting of this edit, I will leave my reasoning here. I reverted the bit that says "Younus AlGohar was a former disciple of Shahi who was kicked out by Shahi" because this is uncited and a pretty controversial thing to add. Okay and for the next bit I am confused. According to User:Truefighter, none of Shahi's followers believed he died...perhaps I'm under the wrong impression? Could you please explain this, Truefighter? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Omi, its true that none of Shahi followers beleive that he (Shahi) is dead, all followers are waiting for Shahi emergence again as Imam Mehdi (A.S)--Your Message (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay well this shows that you believe Shahi died, and your user page mentions you are an apparent follower of Shahi. Can you explain this, please? By the way, in regards to Shahi's tomb- could anyone tell me- is there any way of confirming that the image of the tomb in this article is actually a tomb built by Shahi's followers for Shahi then? Truefighter, with all due respect to your feelings about AlGohar- please don't put in things like "AlGohar was kicked out by Shahi" without citations, as AlGohar falls under BLP and (possible) misinformation like this could actually affect him in real life. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say that dead/disappear there, which I think I forgot to mention. Regarding Younus, this is truth and you know this very very well.--Your Message (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't. Look, I respect your views, but Wikipedia relies on Verification. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 12:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." See WP:VERIFY. Esowteric+Talk 12:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you prove through any reliable sources that younus was a follower of Gohar Shahi?--Your Message (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the better question would be to prove that AlGohar was kicked out by Shahi. Anyway this mentions, "Mr Algohar, who claims he can heal people of incurable diseases, follows the teachings of Gohar Shahi, who he met in Pakistan 20 years ago." Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 13:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, let's get this straight Your Message. First you say that Shahi's disappeared, and then you say that Shahi's dead. I mean, what are you actually at? Come clean and straight. First you say that he's disappeared, and "will return as Imam Mehdi", and then you say he's dead. How can a person die, and then come back with another status or rank? And then you quite apparently show your belief in him as the Mehdi, then I suppose that the article should mention rumors and information on him alike (which is all mentioned on the internet. e.g. Shahi's very much publicized and promoted rank of Mehdi-hood) NY7 ☆ 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You are twisting my words NY, I have said that Shahi was dead/disappeared and return as Imam Mehdi soon.--Your Message (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected version

Hi, what a mess, lots of alterations and a few of the editors with no discussion here on the talkpage at all.. Oh well. we could have a little straw poll to see who supports the version that is protected now and who is against it, so we can see where the disagreement lies..

• Support- this version as cited and non controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support- this version should be used as the base line for future improvements, though I'm open to input about content changes from all involved parties. Esowteric+Talk 18:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this version could indeed be the base line for future improvements, I agree. It is non-controversial and includes most of the information that wasn't included before. But I do think that more information could be added, which is cited and non-controversial.-- NY7 ☆ 19:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support-looks good to me. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support-if only to have a reasonable starting point. Nuujinn (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Not supported Please refrain to add anything about Younus and MFI in this article.--Your Message (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Not supported As I have already been told you guys that Younus and MFI don't belong to Gohar Shahi, therefore, it is request to do not say or add anything about them in this article. Meanwhile, I am searching for reliable sources to my claim, hopefully will return soon.--Falconkhe (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• You seriously need to give evidence in your defence at the sockpuppet investigation, which has already confirmed use of sockpuppets. What I mean is, "voting" twice as above may be seen as a continuing violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Esowteric+Talk 12:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Falconkhe (Truefighter/Your Message), you should definitely find reputable sources for your claims, but then again, there are sources that say that AlGohar is clearly connected to Shahi, somehow or another, so if you do find sources, ultimately, we're going to have to mention both views and opinions that the REPUTABLE sources provide. So, please don't make un-cited claims and bring in some results for a consensus to this article. Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  14:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Editors involved in editing this article, Sockpuppetry confirmed Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm new at this, is the next step to go to ANI and request that the puppet accounts blocked? My feeling is that it would be better to not ask for Falconkhe to be blocked, since that user clearly has an interest in these issues, and focus on trying to achieve consensus. (and I'm willing to take it to ANI if that's the right thing to do). Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no need, the report is in a list awaiting administrator action and they will action the report probably sometime today without any need for any other reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Spiritualism (talk · contribs) & Truefighter (talk · contribs) indefinitely and Falconkhe (talk · contribs) (as it appears to be the earliest account) for 1 week. I chose 1 week because I believe it's possible this may be more of a WP:MEAT issue than straight-up sockpuppetry (though, of course, the outcome is the same) and that a slightly more lenient approach (rather than full banhammer swing) may be more conducive towards future productive collaboration involving this particular editor perspective with greater potential to avoid further violations. I am quite possibly wrong and overly optomistic, though. Some concern has already been raised to this effect...if others share the concern that 1 week is too lenient, I will adjust the block time accordingly. Any administrator is free to adjust the block time at her/his discretion as well. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I'm easy about duration. If there's a recurrence, then the duration can be lengthened; if not, no need. Esowteric+Talk 15:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocks for such editing should not be lenient, it puts out the message that it is not much of a problem. Disruptive sockpuppetry the likes of this is one of the worst issues on wikipedia, for such disruption I would like to see a months block, which will give this editor plenty of time to either move on or consider his issues and make a commitment to better practice like discussion etc and request a reduction with a commitment and a declaration that he understands he has done something wrong. Consider the edits he has made with these accounts and the level of disruption he has caused and I doubt if between the lot of the socks edits there is one decent one with a citation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see the checkuser's comment on the SPI page. I feel like Nasrudin: swayed one way, then the other. He's elected judge and hearing a case. Listening to the prosecution, he can't contain himself and replies "You're right!" Then he hears the defence and again he declares "You're right!" Finally the court clerk points out, "With respect your honour, they can't both be right." "You're right!" replies Nasrudin. Esowteric+Talk 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the feedback I've received and the clarification by jpgordon, I'm compelled to increase the block time to one month and will leave an unambiguous message that indicates future violations will warrant an indefinite block. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to you all. It's appreciated. Esowteric+Talk 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that under the circumstances, there is a chance to consider unlocking the article, reducing to semi protection or auto confirmed user, as the disruptive elements are now blocked. I in the hope of some general stability and discussion and users in general all understanding the need for citations to support any additions or alterations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too. I'll semiprotect Younus AlGohar, Messiah Foundation International & this article right now. Don't hesistate to ask for un- or re-protection should it prove necessary. — Scientizzle 16:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresh meat?

We may have fresh WP:MEAT? Esowteric+Talk 10:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And just when I got my hopes up, too. It looks like it, judging from Asikhi's edit summary and notices left on their talk page about using numerous IPs. They also went back for the MFI articles, just like user:Falconkhe.--Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Have mentioned the possibility at the SPI page. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe. Esowteric+Talk 10:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. I'm afraid its time for me to sign off for the night, but I'll be sure to add evidence from the MFI page in the morning. Take care--Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I -- re WP:MEAT

Spitfire, a clerk at sockpuppet investigations suggested that the matter should be reported at the admin incidents noticeboard.

Therefore, interested parties, please comment or provide evidence at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Falconkhe and User:Asikhi. Sorry about the typo in the heading.

This has now been resolved. Esowteric+Talk 12:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry investigation

Asikhi, Spiritualism, Truefighter, Iamsaa and Falconkhe have all been indefinitely blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe‎. Esowteric+Talk 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits post-unlocking

Improvements are welcome, though one thing you might like to consider, Nasir, is that by reverting an edit made previously by Falconhe, rather than working from the current article, a number of references which were tidied up and made into full citations have been replaced by bare URLs, including geocities which will now be dead links.

Check out WP:LINKROT, maybe?

Just a thought. Esowteric+Talk 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What an awful edit by User:Nasiryounus , absolute rubbish. Destructive to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should revert and consider introducing new material once reliable, third party fully-cited references have been found? Esowteric+Talk 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he seems to have added a quote from the guys own website which adds nothing but what looks like propaganda and he has removed the gardian reference, why, I can only imagine he doesn't like it...clearly needs reverting. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be, and forgive me if this seems a bit extreme, is that folks suggest an edit or other change on the talk page for this and the other articles involved, and we agree to not push those changes out to the main page until we have some consensus on each section--that way folks can hash out differences and try to reach consensus on the talk page first, and we won't have this constant reverting and revisions. I think it would work more smoothly if we work on one section at a time. It just seems like if we're not cautious and take things slowly, we'll just be running around in circles. Nuujinn (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly help. What we have to get away from, imo, is the partisan mentality of ripping out "the opposition's" cited version and replacing it with our own preferred version, cited or not. I.e, aim to augment what cited material is there (whether we like it or not) with additional cited material, providing that it adds value to the article. And we should be flexible enough to detach, put on our Wikipedian hats and even consider adding valuable, cited material that doesn't fit in, or even conflicts, with our personal preferences or prejudices. :) Esowteric+Talk 21:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That does seem a little extreme, but we might need it. At the very least, consensus won't be messed about with by sockpuppets. I think maybe major changes (i.e adding additional information and references) should be discussed here, but copyediting and formatting, I think, is okay to do without discussion. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry for my edits, I just copy-pasted an older version, without realizing it'd remove the fixed references you tirelessly worked to fix. My intentions were that of adding a section called 'Claims of Mehdi-hood', because there has been much rumors to Shahi regarding him being the Imam Mehdi, as well as a whole organization based just to preach this message of his, and I am not at all promoting their propaganda if that is what the impression you got from my last edit, nor did I mean any vandalism.

I've just done quite some research on this case, which has references, is cited moderately and is unbias. So, I was supposing of either putting it up here, so that it be both viewed and be tidied of links if needed. Views please? ----  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think putting up references and proposed text here would be great. And re: Omi's comments, yes, copyedits and formatting should definitely proceed on the main page. I'll likely have some time this weekend to so some of that since that's really my schtick. Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I can find some references for this section- I remember coming across news articles about the controversy surrounding Shahi's claimed Mehdihood. And the rest sounds good Nuujinn:), and thanks for your help.Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

An Edit that might require some discussion

From my readings of Besides his name "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi", his followers also call him, "Gohar Shahi",[1] "Gohar Shahi", [2] "Ra Gohar Shahi" [3] and "Ra Riaz Gohar Shahi" [4], attaching "His Holiness", "His Divine Lordship", "Lord", etc. Would it be appropriate to include these in the "alternative names" section of the infobox- and if so (I've noticed that the honorifics attached to his name before were removed), with or without the honorifics? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think that honorific prefixes are appropriate. See WP:MOSBIO. Personally, I don't see any problem with listing one or two alternative names in the infobox: "Ra Gohar Shahi", and "Ra Riaz ...", say (taking out the superfluous current "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi"). Esowteric+Talk 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am about to remove this article from my watchlist, bringing things up here for discussion is great, since Ecoteric posted the nasrudin link I am asking myself, what would the mulla say, I like to look at similar articles to see what they have done A._C._Bhaktivedanta_Swami_Prabhupada has multiple names. All are welcome on my talkpage, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and take care. Esowteric+Talk 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd just go ahead with something sensible -- it can easily be changed if there are objections. Esowteric+Talk 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Off2riorob...anyway, I think I just go without the honorifics then, as thats what they seem to have done with A._C._Bhaktivedanta_Swami_Prabhupada. I'll make redirects for those names as well. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 23:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the Dalai Lama, as well, "His Holiness" is only used in the text to point out that some Westerners use the term though it doesn't translate into a Tibetan title. Esowteric+Talk 08:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out...although I'm sure Westerners believing in Shahi refer to him as "His Holiness", I don't know how it would be incorporated into the article itself- it might sound a little POV. I think it would be more appropriate to include "His Holiness" as a term from Westerners to refer to the the title of Imam Mehdi, just as Westerners refer to the one titled Dalai Lama as "His Holiness". Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, in Dalai Lama in the lede the phrase "his holiness" is just used without an explanation. I don't think that kind of usage would be stable in these articles, tho. If you look at Pope, there's a nice block caled "papel style" that outlines titles used, but both the pope and the dalai lama are recurring entities in very old and established religions.
On the other hand, if you take a look at some other articles about religious leaders (and I'm not comparing these in terms of their religions, or value, or importance), many use titles like this but put them in quotations, see for example Bahá'u'lláh. So I think if there's a usage that's citable, I think referencing that in a phrase such as 'Followers of Gohar Shahi refer to him as "his holiness"' should be admissible. I think likewise if there are citable sources that show that some people regard Gohar Shahi as a heretic, that should admissible as well. It seems to me that documenting how people regard Gohar Shahi should be fine so long as the article itself does not implicitly or explicitly endorses one or the other view. Nuujinn (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you're quite right. I just scanned around the bold subject name. My bad. Esowteric+Talk 10:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I think you've hit on a good tack for dealing with this issue. I know that Other Stuff Exists, and foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, but given the controversy here, following the lead of similar articles seems a very good idea. Nuujinn (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this seems like the most stable way to work with the article. Thank you both for your continued efforts :). Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 19:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

I am very much concern about this article. This is the article, which is already establish and translated into 28 languages, you all have to understand this conspiracy, which is executed by Nasiryounus, Omirocksthisworld & RayStar77 who are followers of younus and younus is a anti-gohar factor, he is neither the follower nor associated with Gohar Shahi. This is a conspiracy and I am sorry to note that you all fall into the NET of younus. When younus and MFI don't belong to Gohar Shahi, why should they be in this article? If Nasiryounus, Omirocksthisworld & RayStar77 aren't associated with Younus or MFI, why their contribution proved that? I would request to kindly don't add information about Younus and MFI in this article, I also try to provide references to this fact and I request you all to look contribution of Nasiryounus, Omirocksthisworld & RayStar77 and their aim is to promote Younus and MFI on wikipedia, please try to understand.--Asikhi (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you are saying. Younus AlGohar does seem to claim that he follows the teachings of Gohar Shahi--is that something, Asiki, that you dispute?
It seems pretty clear that MFI and Younus AlGohar do associate themselves with Gohar Shahi, so discussion of that seems relevant, at least in term of documenting the controversy. Now you have said you have references, and I personally would welcome contributions from you, especially if you can provide verifiable sources that document the views of those who believe that Younus AlGohar does not follow the teachings of Gohar Shahi, or how he has deviated from the path of Gohar Shahi--I think a paragraph or two illustrating the differences would be a fine addition to one of these articles. Clearly there are disputes about this, but I confess I know very little about any of these matters, and don't read the languages required to fully delve into original source material. I hope we can get some of that material into this articles, and look forward to your contributions. Nuujinn (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've provided a link to these grievances here, and added a note that you have grievances of your own, at the AN/I thread and on the SPI page. Please note that another clerk has decided that they should after all check for possible sockpuppetry and, failing that, look at possible meatpuppetry violations. Esowteric+Talk 13:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is very clear that Younus & MFI don't belong or associate with Gohar Shahi. Kindly don't add them in this article.--Asikhi (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What I did (before the reverts) was take the bare URL that had been added and convert it to a fully-cited web reference. Bare URLs lead to WP:LINKROT. My interest was in keeping the citation style tidy, that's all. Esowteric+Talk 13:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see from your edits that there is battle going on partly over which "side's" web sites are used, and this isn't entirely unreasonable. As the URL you object to actually contains a version of the book which may be read online, I feel that this is the more valuable URL. However, there's also the possibility of including BOTH URLs as references/notes. But it is unreasonable to expect all mention of Younus AlGohar and his operations to be eradicated from the article, or for all mention of him to be shown in a bad light. It is more about inclusion than exclusion. Esowteric+Talk 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Have reverted to a clean, cited version of the article (by Nuujinn) and placed references from both web sites beside the book (inclusion, not exclusion). In the same vein, I have used refs pointing to both competing web sites in the lead paragraph, so there's no need to fight over this anymore. Esowteric+Talk 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, FWIW.

Also, for Asikhi, please forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing your position or opinon, but it seems you're saying that Younus AlGohar and the MFI have nothing to do with Gohar Shahi, and thus they shouldn't be part of the article. But others clearly disagree, and it seems the mere fact of that disagreement would lead to the conclusion that both views need to be part of this article. Can you take some time to document with verifiable references the reasons why you feel that Younus AlGohar and the MFI are not true followers of Gohar Shahi? Please remember that I don't have access to much of the source material and am not familiar with these people and groups. I think that would both help me understand your position better and improve the article. Nuujinn (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This maybe gives a measure of the strength of feeling sometimes surrounding these disputes: User block notice. Esowteric+Talk 16:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've already mentioned a dozen times that I'm not associated either with Shahi, MFI or AlGohar, merely have met a few followers of the mentioned and seem interested and want to contribute in the matter. Have no biases towards either party, and have recently realized that there are two parties both with different views regarding Shahi himself. I'm sure what User:Asikhi is saying can be included to the article, but cannot be excluded as what has been said is verified through reliable sources. According to you, (you obviously have a bias opinion regarding the matter) you think that AlGohar is not associated with Shahi at all, however, I've done some homework beforehand, and according to MFI and AlGohar himself, their central attention all goes to Shahi. For example, AlGohar formed the organization MFI, all for the sake of promoting Shahi as the prophesied personality. That obviously has to say that he's associated with Shahi, and then there's the photo on his article of him and Shahi, and numerous videos on YouTube and their official website alike which have Shahi and AlGohar's conversation.

You can provide reputable sources of your opinion, and they can be added to the article as an opinion of a specific side, however, information regarding AlGohar and MFI seems very unlikely to be removed altogether. --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy Edits

I've just done some copy edits, and what I figure to do is make a couple sweeps through the article in the new few weeks, working in small sections at a time. What I'd like to do is tighten the prose without altering the meaning--admittedly an impossible goal. Please feel free to change my edits, I'm just trying to help out and I freely admit I know nothing about the topic.... Nuujinn (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help...and don't worry if theres a mistake it can always be fixed. I'll also be looking it over in the next couple of days :). Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Imam Mehdi Matter

I've done some research, hence am going to add some information I've digged out without removing any of the present information. Any views? --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  00:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats great, but this edit diff shows the section about Shahi claiming to meet Jesus has been repeated. I'll look it over though and fix the wording...but please watch yourself with these kinds of things. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, somewhere along all those consecutive edits, the reference tags got messed up. I think I fixed most of them, but keep that in mind as well. I've also done some copyediting, changing some of the wording to a more neutral tone. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm still not awake yet. Back soon. Esowteric+Talk 10:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Archived thread

thread by banned user is archived...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am unable to understand why wiki is favoring followers of Younus & MFI, WP really means to promote lie, which Omir & Nasir are trying to preach? This is mentioned thousand times that Gohar Shahi was FOUNDER of ASI then why this information added? Why Omir & Nasir aren't banned on wiki? --Newatwp (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Not this again. As a wise person once told me, inclusion not exclusion- nobody is removing any information linking ASI to Gohar Shahi. But then again, its nice to see you're attempting discussion now. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, being Sunday morning I lay in bed for some time. I have not as yet had a chance to review the edits made, though one thing that did strike me was the use of a bare URL as a reference in the lead paragraph in prime position and entitled "The Representative of Gohar Shahi" pointing to goharshahi.com, set up by "the opposition". Parties should not take advantage of the lull in hostilities. Please see WP:ENEMY and learn to write fairly on behalf of your enemy. I note that the same kind of fighting is going on at Naqshbandia Owaisia concerning the present Sheikh of the Order, which is disputed, which one sheikh should be listed in the chain and which one web site should be shown in External links. These people do not seem to understand that it is possible to be inclusive rather than exclusive Esowteric+Talk 10:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC) If this is a sock and user contributions show a similar pattern of editing as before, I'll file another AN/I report. But for now ... I need a shower, a shave and some breakfast. Esowteric+Talk 10:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Its better you should use some mental approach to judge younus is dodging you all, you will repent one day, as it is clearly prove that you belong to Younus. Wait for a while we are plnning to teach you a lesson very soon.--Newatwp (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your help, I was just about to turn in for the night :). It'd be great if you could look over the article for tone and such- I've done some copyediting but I'm probably not the best person to judge its neutrality anyway. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of changing the bare URL to a proper reference, and changing its title to something less provocative.Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I will see your liberty later as now I am finding reliable sources for Younus (Harami) disconnection with RAGS, I will see you soon.--119.160.17.37 (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Newatwp, the reason Omi and Nasir aren't banned is that they have not done anything that the wikipedia community feels is worthy of banishment--it has nothing to do with whether what they say is or isn't true, but rather how they interact with other members of the community and how they edit. I for one would very much appreciate it if you could provide some details references about how exactly Younus AlGohar fails to follow the teaching of Gohar Shahi--if you're concerned in a religious sense about Younus AlGohar leading people astray, and you can document with verifiable and reliables source why you and others feel that way, that information would be an excellent addition to these articles. I'm afraid that implicit threats such as "Wait for a while we are plnning to teach you a lesson very soon" are not helpful, you would do better to work with us to make sure that your views are properly documented. I hope you will do this, since we need additional sources, and I ask that you please help us in this effort. Nuujinn (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Talk page threat I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Newatwp: block evasion / threat. Please give your evidence there. Esowteric+Talk 10:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I have not had time to check out changes to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, but I do share your concerns. The lull in hostilities should not be used to push the arguments of one side or the other. Please read WP:ENEMY about writing fairly on behalf of one's opponents. And consider inclusion rather than edit warring by exclusion (ie by excluding or blackening the views of one's opponents). Esowteric+Talk 12:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC) In all fairness, I am concerned that an opposing editor with a possible COI also needs to exercise caution and restraint. I have left a mildly-worded notice at User talk:Nasiryounus‎ to this effect. Esowteric+Talk 12:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Could you please look out, which is a reliable source to be used in this article.--Newatwp (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A new source from Newatwp

Newatwp found this source which you might like to look at: "Could you please look out, which is a reliable source to be used in this article."

Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 12:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article has been "written to order". It uses the same information and phraseology as the blocked sock user. Esowteric+Talk 12:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an editorial...written by one Sayyed Aamir Ali (who used to have a wiki article, written by Asikhi (talk · contribs)). I'm with you on this one, Esowteric. In any case, it doesn't seem to meet WP:RS very well... — Scientizzle 13:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to seek a ruling on the article's admissibility, I have created a thread at:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Article relating to Gohar Shahi, Younus AlGohar and MFI

Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 14:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the phraseology used such as "Younus made his name AlGohar to dodge..." is almost identical to the user's writing style. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What Sayyed Aamir Ali writes in the article is a damning indictment. However, such evidence may only be used in Wikipedia if it can be verified and produced in reliable sources. Esowteric+Talk 08:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

At least its better than WP:SPS references provided on Messiah Foundation International & Younus AlGohar. You can verify it too. It's a third party reliable source, what else you wanted?--116.71.24.53 (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP has filed an AN/I here. Esowteric+Talk 09:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've commented there. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} He is not muslim, nor sufi. He is fake mahdi.

119.152.33.125 (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, what I've to say is, you can make suggestions saying that 'he is not muslim, nor sufi' and bring in some reasonable source, however you cannot say that he is 'fake mahdi', because that's not for you to decide, that's for the public in a whole to decide. I'm not pro-Shahi or any of the sort, however, making statements as such is opinionated and bias. ----  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have checked the sources listed after that statement, and all 3 do not specifically mention him being a Muslim. Also, I did a brief Google search on this, again with no valid citations that he calls himself (or has been called by others) a Muslim. I have removed this from the article. Thanks for the help! (If any editor feels this was done in error, please feel free to point out the error and revert me; no hard feelings, although I would ask that you leave me a message pointing out my mistake so I don't make it again!) ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough to me :). Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong as HE was a muslim sufi and you can view it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.54.20 (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is another ipsock of banned user Iamsaa (talk · contribs) (he keeps putting a pipe | between URL and title, breaking the URL), but the reference does include words like "Muslim author". Of course the United States Department of State could be wrong on this. Have tentatively re-added the word Muslim + the reference, but feel free to over-rule me on this ... or on the other issues like WP:SPS at Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International. Esowteric+Talk 11:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just changed the wording around from "Muslim" to "Thought to be a Muslim". I hope thats alright. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he was a Muslim no need to add thought to be a muslim.--119.160.54.20 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User:119.160.54.20, you can say what you suggest, however do not be pushing as Wikipedia article do not belong to anybody, they are a source verified by reputable sources. ----  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought keeping that kind of wording would satisfy those who have an issue calling Shahi Muslim (i.e. the IP requesting to edit) as well as those who do consider him a Muslim (such as yourself, Iamsaa). Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that there's little need to put this in the lead? It seems to me that since his status as a muslim, or as a heretical muslim, sufi, fake or real mahdi are subject to debate, all of that discussion should be in the controversy section. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That could work, too. :) Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the informative from the lead for now, and I'll add it to the controversy section once I get the other sources regarding debated titles given to Shahi. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt that all biased and those who belive in negative propaganda are after this article. Dont worry I will be back very soon with something non of you can dany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.54.20 (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for specialist help with the articles

Have left a note asking for specialist help at the new religious movements workgroup talk page here. Esowteric+Talk 18:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article critical of Younus AlGohar and MFI

An aggrieved IP has put forward this article, which is highly critical of Younus AlGohar and MFI. Esowteric+Talk 09:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs) noticed, the references look impressive at first glance ... until you actually click on them. Esowteric+Talk 09:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It certainly educates the reader about the POV of those opposed to YAG and MFI, that's true. The aggrieved IP should take the article to the Reliable sources noticeboard and ask uninvolved parties there. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Esowteric+Talk 09:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All Faith Spiritual Movement Int'l

I don't doubt that this organization may be related to/or even founded by Shahi, however you need to bring in reputable sources saying so. (All Faith Spiritual Movement was established by His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in early 2000. Have you not seen All Faith name in book "The Religion of God"?) A comment that User:Kamranhg passed on.

User:Kamranhg, I have reserved a copy of the First Edition from an office of the MFI from my local area, and it is distributed by RAGS International, which is a former name to the MFI. The question that really strikes is, according to the First Edition of the book, the preface is written by AlGohar but the web-book found on your website mentions that the book, 1/ is distributed by All Faith Spiritual Movement Int'l and 2/ the preface is not credited to AlGohar, rather to All Faith... and then mentions a couple of names to the contacts.

I understand that there are many organizations attributed to Shahi, but I begin to doubt the authenticity of them all. Please do bring in reputable sources saying that Shahi has founded All Faith... and then it reserves all rights to be posted up. ;) Thanks and no hard feelings.

Hoping to co-operate even better. ----  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)