Talk:Mohammed Burhanuddin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early Comments

If we're dropping the Dr. in the name for the actual article, shouldn't we add a "Mohammad" as his middle name? —iFaqeer | Talk to me! 00:53, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

agreed... he is usually referred to as Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin (in sermons at the mosque etc.) and only in more formal contexts is he referred to as Dr. Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin (usually in written form, on legal documentation etc...) Hulleye 10:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's been moved to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. Mohammed is the way that Bohras spell the name.

-Aebrahim 26 June, 2005

I believe that instead of just Mohammed Burhanuddin, the article title and names in the article should be SYEDNA Mohammed Burhanuddin. Just like Dr. is an honorary title, so is Syedna (not to mention it is important as to who Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is.

-Murtaza 18 Feb, 2006

His Holiness Syedna Dr Mohammad Burhanuddin (TUS) is the right way. -Murtuza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.215.108 (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't go by honorifics/title, if the person is still identifiable by their basic given name. I don't see any reason why Mohammedd Burhanuddin is not an identifiable name, or not a name associated with the figure. And can I assume "(TUS)" is akin to "R.A." or "S.W.A."? If so, per WP:MOSISLAM we don't use them at all unless just discussing them in an academic context. Though, if you have verifiable, third-party mention of the (TUS) honorific, and that's something used specifically for Dais, that might be worth putting the Dai article. 18:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support "Murtaza", "Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin" is technically correct name, its how he was publicly recognized and also this is how he used to write his name himself. Mustafasr (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus regarding name

I have seen in this article there is an issue of consensus regarding the name. Let me shed some light on the same:

• 1) Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin was the religious leader of Dawoodi Bohra sect, just like Pope is to Christanity. Since calling the Pope, Pope John Paul is allowed in Wikipedia, the name Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin should also be allowed. Here Syedna is the word used instead of Pope. Furthermore just like the Pope, Syedna is also placed before only one person in the world in Dawoodi Bohra community. Just like Pope it indicates leadership. So by not allowing to use it would amount to discrimination on the part of Wikipedia and its editors and administrators and other authorities towards a minority sect.

• 2) All the verifications in Wikipedia is done on the basis of media references and in the entire media Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is refered to as Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin.

I would like to request the editors to please do not confuse yourselves by the issues raised by people with less knowledge regarding this article and resolving the issue of name move ahead and concentrate on improving the content of the article.

I apologise if i have been short and to the point in the explaination, it really isn't worth elaborating, it is so simple to understand. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFIC is the guideline on the use of honorifics and titles, not "the entire media". Anyway, if you look in the book Mullahs on the Mainframe by Jonah Blank, you'll see that he sometimes uses "Syedna", sometimes he doesn't.

Araz5152, I'm curious about your point of comparison to the pope, though. I've asked this on various occasions but never got an answer: is Syedna a title like a "pope", or an honorific like "his holiness"? I thought the title was Da'i al-Mutlaq. If it's an honorific, it should be in the infobox, not the running text. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As literally explained above I repeat: "syedna" is a title like "pope" and there can be only and only one person at a time in DB community in the world to have the title. If Pope is entitled for it in Wiki definitely Syedna is, nobody can discriminate as per Wiki. I am just further confirming in related articles and will comply the things as per Wiki norms.--Md iet (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

First Death Anniversary, 6 January, 2015

"On the occasion of first death anniversary of Burhanuddin over three hundred thousand Dawoodi Bohra from all over the world gathered in Mumbai. CM, Maharashtra also meets Mufaddal to pay his tribute..

People offering tribute at Raudat Tahera on occasion of first death anniversary (2015) of Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin cremated here

Dawoodi Bohra (.3 to .4 million) doing mass sermon on occasion of death anniversary of Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin under Mufaddal Saifuddin

CM, Maharashtra with Mufaddal on occasion of first death anniversary of late Syedna Burhanuddin, Jan 6, 2015

"

Please add above section in the article with images.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

RS provided as per above, please edit.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Becky Sayles, there is no X. This is new section to be added with heading given. Please consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.133.82 (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

its a one time event hence not notable.Summichum (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So was the man's death. I removed this event from the Dawoodi Bohra article because it's hardly important enough for an encyclopedic description of the whole community. If someone can write up a single sentence summary using a reliable source, I would support adding it here. (YouTube doesn't count, nor photos on Commons.)

However, in this context, I would point to the #Proposed merge with 2014 Mumbai stampede, where coverage of a much more widely-reported event was effectively blocked, so there's a potential disparity here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a notable historic event for the subject, where about one third of community gathered at one place and CM of state join it. Telegraph India is reliable source if not you tube. A summary with additional reports from reputed news channel Indian express and DNA added, please include the section above.125.21.153.160 (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The above edition proposed is self explainatory and directly related with subject of article. As advice by the editor above 'a single sentence summary using a reliable source' are given. Hope this is acceptable as per Wiki criteria. 125.21.153.160 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope there is no objections. Edit may proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.180.9 (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no further suggestions. Plz edit as per above.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Table on Islam

I have removed the table on Islam. It does not represent Dawoodi Bohra POV on Islam and hence is misleading. Dawoodi Bohras dont think too highly of Abu Bakr (who is listed as a major figure in the table) Sbohra 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Attention

This article is not well structured. It has major details of the Syedna's life missing. This article should be rewritten as a biographic article. Sbohra 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps someone should be contacted at Malumaat.com to provide this article with the relevant information. They are the official website of the Dawoodi Bohras, they are sure to have someone who can devote some time to this.

Respecting public sentiments (majority or minority doesn't matter)

Yes it is highly recommended that where ever his holiness is being referred to on any part of the website or the world wide web his name should be preceded by his title.

It should be noted that in order to maintain peace throughout the world, it is necessary to first respect each others thoughts and opinions irrespective of the differences. This rule should be applied by one and all.

I agree Mustafasr (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree Mustafasr (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.229.177 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article lacks a summary at the beginning. Kindly remove the tag only after writing a summary. Sbohra 09:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A little tweaking

I tweaked a few things to clean up the article a little: Taher Saifuddin is not a link in Wiki, but Syedna Taher Saifuddin is. So, I added the word "Syedna" before the name at one place. The link is now seen clearly. There were a few grammatical errors and a bit of unnecessary verbosity, so I have "precised" the material a little. I changed the title of the third section to "Awards and Accomplishments" as this section pertains to His Holiness' accomplishments.

Please let me know if these changes look good.

-drtaher

Burhanuddin article merge tag

I have placed a merge tag on the Burhanuddin article, suggesting it be merged into this article. Perhaps a simple redirect would be better, but I thought it would be a good idea if someone had a look at the Burhanuddin article first, in case there is anything that should be included here Flowerpotman ^talk-_{wot I've done} 23:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just turn into a redirect. It was difficult enough removing the POV from this article. Cheers, CP 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am changing it from Burhannudin to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. Calling his holiness by name, without his title would be kind of disrespectful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.172.158 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people worship satan, should we add "his holiness" in that article too just to make sure we're not being disrespectful? The best way to not be disrespectful is to equalize all across Wikipedia, hence the reason that the Pope and others don't have "his holiness" in them either. I could continue to argue against it spiritually, but I could also just as easily site that it's against Wikipedia policy. It's early, so I think I'll do the latter. Cheers, CP 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

- but it says "THE POPE John Paul..."

Some important dates

were added to this article ,which were removed on pretext of requiring authentic source.

Pl. find below the information in other form.May be acceptable for the article, as these are hard facts of his life and nothing objectionable in it,would benefit readers as whole. If at all ,A request in the begining can be made for any correction on facts/dates/period if required,

"Some memorable events of his life:

Sayedna Mohd. Burhanuddin has Completed recitation of Holy Quran at age of 6 years in 1338 AH. There was a motor accident at Colombo, bridge got damaged, car got hanged on one wheel,and he escaped unhurt by mercy of god( 1345 AH). He got designation of hadiyath (Sheikh) from 51st Dai at age of 17 years (1349 AH). designated as "maajun" on 27th Rajab ,1352 AH. He became "hafezul Quran' ( can recite full Quran w/o any visual/audial help) at age of 21 Years. (1353 H) and Married to Madam Amatullah in 1354 AH. . He made trip To Yemen for visit to Earlier Dai's of Yemen in 1381 AH and consequently designated as "Mansural-Yaman". In year 1385 AH he became 52nd Dai on death of 51 st Dai His Father Taher Saifiddin. He organised Ashura(Imam Husain's) function at various location as below , all over the world, and addresed the gathering of Dawoodi Bohra’s from all over world for Imam Husain’s cause : 1969 AD ---Mecca 1980,1981---Qahera(Cairo) 1977,83,87,96--Karachi 1984,1998--Nairobi 1990--Darussalam 2008-09--Mombasa 2001---Houston 1970,91,99,2007,2008--Colombo 2004---Dubai

Request comment --Md iet (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You're operating on a misunderstanding of how information is added to Wikipedia. The threshold is not truth, but verifiability. If you can't verify your information, it doesn't matter if it's true or not and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. To avoid an edit war, however, I have cleaned up the information so that it falls closer to Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines and tagged it for citation. If citations are not provided by the end of the month, I will remove this information because, particularly on a living person, uncited material may be removed at any time. Canadian Paul 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Major clean up

Thanks for a major clean up action done. Wikipedia is known for collection of material which is acceptable and time tested by majority of readers as it has beautiful facility of self edition/correction. The cleaned up material was sustained for very long period and it has got acceptability from a large chunk of readers in the period. Although clean up action has improved the article in its look but in the process some important information which reader generally search for got deleted.

It is very right that matter requiring proper citation is to be marked for improvement but total deletion will not leave scope of improvement. We may find some way in between such that facts are depicted without becoming excessive and undue.--Md iet (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, glad to work with you on these improvements. If you get a chance to look through the "invisible" comments I added in the edits, I've given clear justification. for the material I've hidden/removed. Primary concerns:

• Far too many photos of buildings; the subject is not an architect, so while it may be significant that he has funded building restoration, such does not justify having a dozen photos of buildings, per WP:UNDUE.
• The lengthy description of architectual renovations, again, is excessive. While it's apparent restoration has been a priority of his, the basics of his priorities, and a few key examples, should suffice. Again, the trick is to keep the article properly weighted between the various important aspects of his career. Unless architecture is four times more important than his preaching, it shouldn't be four times as long.
• The list of places he's supervised Ashura seem a bit excessively detailed. I'm open to contradiction on that one, and technically it is cited to something, but the format took up a lot of space, and I'm not convinced that reading that list is fundamental to the average reader understanding Burhanuddin.
• It's preferred not to use the same format for both reference footnotes and explanatory footnotes (like the ones footnoting the CE dates to explain the AH dates). Largely because this makes info look cited when it's not actually referenced to anything, but just explained. Instead I've moved them up to parentheses, "(1943 CE)" for clarity, and removed the "at the age of" since we don't need three different way to explain every date (age, AH, CE).
• Big thing: there are a bunch of technical terms in the "Early life" section that are not at all clear to a layman. They should either be wikilinked to a definining page (like mithaq properly is), or else a parentheses explaining what a "mazoon" or whatever else is.
• The article has some good use of media articles, which helps improve the neutrality, but still is a bit heavy on DB-based sources. Try checking out GoogleBooks, and look for books that appear to be neutral/academic (not with flowery words like "vibrant" or "rare qualities") which give details about MB's life and career.

Just a few suggestions; the page is heading in a positive direction. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Burhanuddin and Female genital mutilation : FGM within Dawoodi Bohra Community

“We claim to be modern and different from other Muslim sects. We are different but not modern,” Bano, a 21-year-old law graduate who is angry about what was done to her, told AFP in New Delhi.

She vividly remembers the moment in the party when the aunt pounced with a razor blade and a pack of cotton wool. … For generations, few women in the tightly-knit community have spoken out in opposition, fearing that to air their grievances would be seen as an act of revolt frowned upon by their elders.

But an online campaign is now encouraging them to join hands to bury the custom.

The anti-Khatna movement gained momentum after Tasneem, a Bohra woman who goes by one name, posted an online petition at the social action platform Change.org in November last year.

She requested their religious leader, the 101-year-old Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, ban female genital mutilation, the consequences of which afflict 140 million women worldwide according to the World Health Organisation. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is the 52nd Dai-al Mutalaq (absolute missionary) of the community and has sole authority to decide on all spiritual and temporal matters.

Every member of the sect takes an oath of allegiance to the leader, who lives in western city of Mumbai. When contacted by AFP, Burhanuddin’s spokesman, Qureshi Raghib, ruled out any change and said he had no interest in talking about the issue.

“I have heard about the online campaign but Bohra women should understand that our religion advocates the procedure and they should follow it without any argument,” he said.

But over 1,600 Bohra Muslim women have since signed the online petition. …

“The main motive behind Khatna is that women should never enjoy sexual intercourse. We are supposed to be like dolls for men,” 34-year-old Tabassum Murtaza, who lives in the western city of Surat, told AFP by telephone. … see: Female circumcision anger aired in India AFP 23.04.2012

http://dawn.com/2012/04/23/female-circumcision-anger-aired-in-india-fm/

A Sydney sheikh has appeared in court in relation to the alleged genital mutilation of two children.

Sheikh Shabbir Vaziri, 56, who police sources say is part of a lesser-known branch of Islam, has been charged with two counts of accessory after the fact of female genital mutilation and hindering investigation of a serious indictable offence. Police will allege the two girls had the procedure, which is also known as female circumcision, performed on them in NSW when they were aged six and seven within the past 18 months.

Police allege one mutilation was performed in Sydney; the other in another metropolitan area.

Mr Vaziri, who was arrested today, appeared in Burwood Local Court this afternoon and was granted bail.

see: Paul Bibby: Sydney sheikh in court over 'female genital mutilation' SMH - The Sydney Morning Herald 13.09.2012

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-sheikh-in-court-over-female-genital-mutilation-20120913-25ubq.html

Police claim Sheik Shabbir Mohammed Bhai Vaziri told members of the Dawoodi Bohra community at Auburn to lie to police when they questioned them over the mutilations.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_print_link.cfm/blog_id/43892

79.251.101.104 (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014

please change aged 108 to 102 Bagwalamurtaza (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: There is no "aged 108" in the article to change to 102... Technical 13 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

Mohammed Burhanuddin died on 17 January 2014 at the age of 102 due to heart attack in Mumbai. Rahulnaphade (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done (not by me). Dwpaul ^Talk 04:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

41.59.29.202 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I request that instead of the name being just "Burhanuddin", please edit it to "Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin" because that is what his name is. And that's is the name he is internationally known by, as that was the title given to him.

 Not done Wikipedia's policies on this are WP:CREDENTIAL - do not use academic titles - (Dr, Prof etc} and WP:LASTNAME - use last name not forename or initials.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014

His name should be Syedna Abdul Qadir Johar Mohammed Burhanuddin(TUS. Please do not use his first name as this shows disrespect. Thank you. 122.179.138.242 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This contradicts the request above, which wanted his first name included. Wikipedia's policies remain the same WP:LASTNAME - use last name not forename or initials. and WP:CREDENTIAL - do not use titles such as Dr, Prof etc. We will not use his full name, other than in the introduction and any info-box, so which one-word name should we be using, if it is not Burhanuddin? - Arjayay (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014

In the biographpy, when it says he escaped an acciedent when brige railing collasped, you need to put an "a" before bridge.

69.203.217.92 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014

Firstly i would like to suggest that since there is a dispute regarding the seccessor, all the matters regarding the succession should be added only under the succession issue tab. All references from the article regarding succession be removed and added under succession issue tab till the time the issue is resolved. The succession tab should be just above 'see also'. This way the article will remain protected from regular edit changes and edit war. Editors should also be encouraged to add any information regarding succession only under the succession tab.

I also request that i have gathered a lot of information regarding this article while i was researching for another article of mine. If you permit i can recreate the whole article with the removal of all succession issues and also add relavant citations. Araz5152 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. This page only has pending changes - level 1 protection on it which should allow you to make edits to the article. However, based on the content of your request, I suggest that you have a discussion and gain a consensus for the changes that you want to make since they seem to be potentially controversial. Using this "edit protected" template is not the way to attract attention to gain consensus to make any changes. Just leave this section here and if no-one responds in seven days or so, then go with the bold, revert, discuss process to discuss making this change. Good luck and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop vandalising this article!

I've just restored the article to the last good looking version. The death section is there in the article to deal with "death" of Burhanuddin not to flood with succession controversy. Stop publicizing succession controversy on each and every bohra related article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

When this kind of religious figure dies, his succession is obviously pertinent information for his biography. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, kind of subject this is. It just another biography of a person recently died. There is nothing like "special" status. His succession is already linked to a separate article on succession controversy (in infobox). What we can do here, is to create a section and link it the main succession controversy article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If Burhanuddin were any ordinary person, he wouldn't have a Wikipedia page. In articles about kings and popes, succession is always potentially encyclopedic. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anupmehra:, You saying "There is nothing like special status. . Mohammed Burhanuddin was not an ordinary person. He was special , atleast for a million Dawoodi Bohras. You can feel it , when you see the crowd mourning in his funeral.--122.168.239.97 (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Is he the Dai of the Dawoodi Bohra alone, or all Mustaali?

If he's the head of all Mustaali, which is my impression, that should be clear in the lede. There seems to be a tendency on Wikipedia to conflate Mustaali and Dawoodi Bohra, to the point where it's hard to tell if the terms are equivalent, or what aspects/persons/issues belong to which. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mustaali and Dawoodi Bohra are different in the sense Mustaali is a branch from which Dowoodi Bohra originated. Just for reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustaali Mustafasr (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Full name or birth-name?

Is Abul-Qaid Johar Mohammed Burhanuddin his full name even now, or is it his birth name and no longer his current name (such as done for Catholic popes?). MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Abul Qaid Johar" is his "Kuniyat" it is an arab tradition to name a man by his son, so as the first son of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is "Qaid Johar" so he is "Abu"(father) "al Qaid Johar" so when read togeather its "Abul Qaid Johar" Mustafasr (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

stampedes comment

"since it is mentioned highly enough to warrant it's inclusion in the article. Whether or not other similar stampedes are mentioned regarding other figures is of no relevance" argued the editor.

Just mentioning of the report in news is not enough to warrant its inclusion. In the biography article whether these type of side incidents to be covered or not are matter of discussion. The incident took place before start of last riot ceremony, and covered else in the Wiki, hence its inclusion here is not justified whether it is related with fame or not.

This may please not be included again till it has consensus here.--Md iet (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Something is extensively reported doesn't mean that it has to be included everywhere; the editor is insisting on its inclusion, if anybody else have similar opinion, may please discuss here.--Md iet (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I think we may go ahead further as above.--Md iet (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at the stampede in a logical, easy to follow format:

• It occurred at the funeral of the person in question. Hence it is relevant to be included in the section in the article on his death.
• A not insignificant number of people were killed or wounded. Hence it is newsworthy. I have seen whole new Wiki articles created about specific attacks that killed far less people.
• It was extensively reported in the media. Hence it is noteworthy and deserves inclusion in the article.

We mustn't allow our sensitivities to prevent us from editing in an objective manner. I understand you are a follower of this man and perhaps you may have found the stampede deaths embarrassing for your faith, but i am definitely looking at this with zero subjectivity and zero harm intended. ThanksFotoriety (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am follower or not is immaterial when I am an editor for a platform like Wikipedia which I respect for its neutrality, free and fare self tested, a Sea of information. I respect your point of view, our POV may differ, let the NPOV/consensus prevail.--Md iet (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. Sorry if i caused any offense.Fotoriety (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your understanding, there is no need of being sorry.--Md iet (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Mate, we talked about consensus & then you have gone along a reverted your edit without any consensus at all!!! Please explain.Fotoriety (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read the language above carefully. Myself and one another editor is not in favour of inclusion of this information as it is covered else and may not be included as the article is a biography. You have insisted for its inclusion, I have specifically asked to readers that 'if anybody else have similar opinion (for inclusion), may please discuss here' and the response was nil.

This clearly indicate consensus in favour of 'not inclusion' (+2:1). After your reply accepting the discussion I further waited for some time for any further response from any other, as there were none, I deleted the information.

You have reverted the information again, please don't include it again till we have consensus here in your favour.--Md iet (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Two editors who are followers of this man and his religion are not very helpful in establishing NPOV. To establish consensus we need neutral editors - which i have contacted & am awaiting a response from. You must also set-out clearly, as i have, why you object to it's inclusion.Fotoriety (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, I object to this inclusion 'as Myself and one another editor is not in favour of inclusion of this information as it is covered else and may not be included as the article is a biography.'

Please get the consensus and then revert.--Md iet (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Request some administrator to help in. I have taken general consent, there were nobody else against my simple argument. This editor is adament and trying to force opinion and disrupting normal process.--Md iet (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"it is covered else and may not be included as the article is a biography" is not a valid reason because, 1) Just because something is covered somewhere else that doesn't invalidate it's inclusion in the Wiki article. 2) A biography includes the notable events related to a person. A stampede at his funeral that killed quite a few people is notable. In fact i believe the stampede could even be created into a whole new article of it's own - much as other deadly religious stampedes have their own articles. I think it may be my only option if you persistently reject it's inclusion in this article, or until the other editors i have contacted helped arbitrate our differences.Fotoriety (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read this thread and start off confused:- User:Md iet Says "my self and one other user" and claims consensus on a 2:1 basis - but I only see 2 editors, User:Md iet and User:Fotoriety. Furthermore, WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy and decisions are made based on policy and consensus, not on a simple vote, which can easily be manipulated, especially with a claimed majority of one.

I concur with User:Fotoriety, that there is no merit whatsoever in the claim "it is covered else and may not be included as the article is a biography" this defies normal logic, and I know of no Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports this. Indeed, if it is covered elsewhere, this coverage should be linked to in this article, to improve the inter-connectivity of related articles; so, if a separate article is written, that would require a reasonable explanation in this article, as well as a link to the separate article.

The death and injury of over 50 people, in a stampede at his funeral, is directly relevant to his biography - it gives a measure of the numbers and enthusiasm of his supporters, and, as a historical event directly linked to Mohammed Burhanuddin, should be mentioned here.

If the stampede became the major part of the article, this would contravene either WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK, but 18 words, supported by 2 references, in the middle of a paragraph, is clearly minimal, and it would not be disproportionate if this were expanded to twice this length.

In brief, I know of no policy or guideline supporting the removal of this text, which is brief, relevant and properly referenced, so IMHO it should remain. Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Arjayay for your response and the strong arguments backed by Wiki policy that you have mentioned. Directly after my last comment i actually found the article 2014 Mumbai stampede which i will now link to in the article under discussion. Thanks again.Fotoriety (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the death section with some more info from zee news, http://zeenews.india.com/news/maharashtra/syedna-mohammed-burhanuddin-laid-to-rest-in-mumbai-70-000-mourners-attend-funeral_904988.html Mustafasr (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

hi I am new to the editors goup and am not apt. So would like to know why my edit was rejected by User:Cyphoidbomb Is it due to the citation was not included on in the article? I have provided the source news link in the comment above. If so do let me know if I can redo the edit with proper citation. And if my edition was not completing the article then pleas do let me know the reason. The edit undone was at 17:58, 11 February 2014 in the history. Thanks Mustafasr (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mustafasr, welcome to Wikipedia! I rejected your edit because the sources that followed the crowd total you submitted didn't indicate there were 70,000 people. One source said "tens of thousands" but that's not 70,000. I believe I also checked the article about the stampede but there was no total there either. For the future, at the top of the page is a link marked "View history". If you click that, you'll see my edit along with my explanation. Take care! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Cyphoidbomb for the explanation. I appreciate it. The new article that I referred is on Zee news, which is a renowned source in India. The count is stated there in the second paragraph, and also in there link, I am mentioning it here again for your reference. zee news article I will check the stampede page and see if its complete or may be needing any updates. Thanks. Mustafasr (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mustafasr, I have added the # of attendees to the article and updated the injury count. The article says that 70,000 people attended his funeral, but it doesn't explicitly say that 70,000 people were involved in the stampede. It just says "thousands". Anyway, something to think about. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of the picture "appointed successor"

1275px|" Appointed successor Dai syedi Muffadal BS saifuddin along side Dai Burhanuddin "

As the succession is disputed, the caption under the picture is not relevant. I'm not against keeping the picture, just put a more neutral legend as "Mufaddal Saifuddin alongside Mohammad Burhanuddin" for example. Thanks. --Ftutocdg (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support: The caption is added in the image by the creator User:Md iet. I'm editing the image and re-uploading it, so it could be used here without dispute. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There's some error coming while uploading a newer version file possibly because of the wrong extension of the file (.pdf). I've requested a {{rename media}} to the file to correct the file name and the file extension. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems it can't be moved to another extension. You could just upload a new image and replace the current one. Widr (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

One simply can not upload an image and release it under Creative commons licence citing "Wikipedia/Commons" as a source. Try renaming file name as a whole including ".pdf to .jpeg" change. It should be working this way. I could only guess by the way, as I've no "file mover" user right, I didn't perform this job ever. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Uploading newer version" doesn't work. "File extension ".pdf" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/jpeg)". It requires renaming file name. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

How about asking the original uploader to upload a new version? They seem to be active. File movers can't change the extension here. Widr (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. He/she was earlier tagged somewhere above. I would chose to leave him a {{talkback}} template to draw his/her attention to this conversation. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Md iet Can you please re-upload an image you earlier uploaded fixing the file extension from ".pdf to .jpeg"? The existing file extension prevents uploading a newer version of the file with pre-embedded caption removed. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

oh, definitely Yes, may take some time please.--Md iet (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Self Published sources like Badre Muneer

• • BADREMUNEER is a sloppy work and not even journalistic and is self published souvenir by Mufaddal Saifuddin group. I acquired some copies of it and it is sloppy piece of work full of advertisements everywhere like an ad souvenir. You can see their desperation that they have duplicated another sloppy blog into their own website domain as explained above to promote a person as a dai. Hence this is why the admins have disqualified its use as a reference

User:Anupmehra An application at WP:RSN was also made[7]. Moreover it is privately circulated and is not available for public. Hence it violates even the verifiablity principle of Wiki. Summichum (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Summichum: I know "badremuneer" is a publication of some die-hard follower of Saifuddin. I've this article on my "to-do" list to make it in compliance wiki standards. I'll be working on it, tomorrow or a day after tomorrow. In the meanwhile, taking into consideration page-protection-level, you are able to make changes to this article. Be bold and make changes you find appropriate. However, once reverted, do no re-instate but discuss it here, on talk page. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Anupmehra The reverts of User:Summichum is not acceptable. he has not disscussed the issue. even you know this article is highly volatile. any changes without discussion will be considered editwar. Kindly revert back all the changes and first discuss the article point by point and only then the changes should be made.Rukn950 06:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukn950 (talk • contribs)

User:Anupmehra The user rukn is reporting me for edit war , as I just removed claims which come from their own highly sloppy piece of ad souvenirs called Mohinodin, badre munir etc. Now the user has added individual links from india tv news all of which could have been summarized in 3-4 lines. Dear Anup Do visit those link and please clarify whether it is authoritative and reliable. Summichum (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

as I just removed claims which come from their own highly sloppy piece of ad souvenirs called Mohinodin, badre munir etc ?. you should not add your own adjective to any reference because it doesn't comply to your view. It may or may not comply to wiki standards is another matter. what would you say to self published fatemidawat.com? and your mundane efforts to impose POV?Rukn950 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hello people, Reverting one-another edits is considered WP:EDITWAR. You must discuss it on article's talk page! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Anupmehra Please not that I have removed citations of badre munir\mohidin etc, which another COI user is reverting my edit. The WP:RSN also accepted it as self published source and removed it. Moreover badre munir is not even verifiable as its a privately circulated souvenir.

Re-edited and cleaned the article

Some of the edits lacked clarity as to succession controversy which looked like promotion statement. the line " 18 were killed and 50 injured were repeated 3 times in the article so I removed repetition. I have also added some information with valid references acceptable to wiki standards. I hope concerned editors would agree to my edits. if there is any difference please discuss in this talk page before doing any changes.Rukn950 (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

it was known for two years that Nass has been performed to mufaddal saifuddin until khuzaima qutbuddin claimed after the demise of syedna muhammed burhanuudin. I am not disputing but stating the fact as represented in media. there is no POV here. my reference is reliable.khuzaima qutbuddin himself on his web fatemidawat.com states that he did not reveal the Nass; even when nass was declared on mufaddal saifuddin,two years back because syedna mohammed burhanuddin asked him not to reveal. he waited for the right time.Rukn950 (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Still tobe fair I have changed the word Known to Reported.

 Comment:- I just noticed, there's a "Succession controversy" section, here too. Really?? How this thing belongs to this article? "Succession controversy" arose only after the demise of Burhanuddin. I've earlier been saying, It belongs to "Dawoodi Bohra" article and a little to related peoples, not anyone else! Well, I'm deleting it. Anyone, thinks, it is wrong doing so, let me know here, why?! (I do not care for your personal opinion, cite some wiki policy and guidelines). Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. you are right. succession controversy do not belong here.Rukn950 (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed Burhanuddin

Hello again, everyone! I've the re-written this article as well, from a new end as a whole to comply with wiki standards and in order to address multiple maintenance tags. I must have missing something on this subject, some people might have objection over some content, well, let me know your concerns, suggest your changes. You're encouraged to be bold while updating encyclopedia, however, once reverted, do-not-reinstate but discuss the matter over here, on article's talk page. I'm little busy these days, I may reply late to your questions. Feel free to ask it to some other person. Your changes and patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:56, 7 April 2014

User:Anupmehra you have done a commendable job rewriting this article. thanks.Rukn950 (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What's this with calendars

He was longest living Da'i of the Dawoodi Bohra community (as per Islamic calender).

I don't get this. According to Islamic calendar, the Islamic year has 354 or 355 days, so it's length is hardly variable (only slightly more so than the Gregorian calendar). Besides, if this is a potential point of dispute, then why is his reign not just measured in days? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How can a date be a matter of dispute? Dawoodi Bohra follow Tabular Islamic calendar hence both the dates can be mentioned.Rukn950 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, here we got some confusion over the span he was head of the community. The source, I've got says, he was the head for 100 years (longest living Da'i), but technically it is not possible as he was born on March 6, 1915 and died on January 17, 2014 (99 years 10 months and XX days). So, in order to remove confusion over the total span period he was the Da'i of the community, "as per islamic calender" as added by me in parenthesis after the claim. Following {{clarification needed}} template, I've changed it to, "100 years as per Islamic calender". However, it can totally be removed, if consensus established over this. In my opinion, living for 100 years, a century, marks respect, and should be shown in the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:45, 8 April

2014 (UTC)

Respect is not the criterion for inclusion, notability as established by reliable sources is. I'm not too fond of that indiatvnews source as it lists random facts without any context.

That aside, I don't mind paying some attention to the man's age, but I'm still confused, as some of the sources cited in this article actually give 102 years. Also Rukn950 mentions a tabular Islamic calender, so there's still potential ambiguity (I must add that I'm a complete outsider to all of this; the recent edit war just got me curious). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, forget above! Mohammed Burhanuddin was the head (Da'i) of a thousands years old religious sect called Dawoodi Bohra, and he was 52nd Da'i, and among all Da'is the community ever had, he was longest living one. It is encyclopedic and should be included. I do-not-care for this "100 years" thing. And, in reply to your bottom note, may I let you know, I was an outsider, sometime ago. Firstly, I was randomly involved in a Bohra related article, then was invited to resolve dispute on some other Bohra related article. I'm moving one to other related article, since a month, perhaps. It'd be much helpful, if you hover over Mufaddal Saifuddin article, still under dispute. It is a fully-protected article, that's a real thing actually causing me more trouble. I simply can not have consensus in between POV editors. Hope, you could add something there. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think both the date should be mention like March 6, 1915 CE ( 20 Raby` al-THaany 1333 A.H.)to January 17, 2014 ( 15 Raby` al-Awwal 1435 A.H.) both are valid. as one is gregorian and other is Hijri. According to islamic tabular calendar his age would be 102 yrs. and according to gregorian 99 years 10 months.Rukn950 (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC). user:Anupmehra user:summichum is adding highly libelious edit both on this article and Syedna Tahers aifuddin article.I am really fed up with this guys vandalism.Rukn950 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

BLP Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

As violated in this article.Rukn950 (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

For reference

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material.

BLP policy applies to biographies of living persons. Also, the material is properly sourced. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As you can see this is not a tabloid. liable information of recently deceased person is not acceptable. further rediff.com cannot be called reliable source. and the primary source has just a claim without any proof.anyone can do that.Rukn950 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you had read my edits before reverting them and going past WP:3RR, you would have seen that I did not cite rediff.com but only respectable sources. I'd be willing to discuss the primary source, but removal of the pucl.org source is not acceptable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A formal warning!

I'm restoring the article to last good version. Any changes being made without discussion would be considered an act of vandalism and would definitely not be tolerated. Be bold, but also be prepared to get yours changes reverted. Keep your POV with you at your home, do not impose it on wiki. Your personal opinion does constitute NOTHING here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles are not owned by anyone.

The current article reads like a hagiography. My first suggestion would be to remove the WP:PEACOCK terms from

He is credited with expanding a two century old Arabic university Al Jamea tus Saifiyah, introducing state-of-the-art facilities and making it world-wide acceptable as an International Baccalaureate Office. In 1983, a new campus of "Al Jamea tus Saifiyah" was built in Karachi by him.

As a second suggestion, I say we include some of the criticism of the man's actions; at least the pucl.org source. That at least adds some balance to the article; an NGO criticizing a religious leader is interesting, encyclopedic information and it clarifies where all the money for these building project comes from. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thirdly, I'm missing some information about his funeral and the deaths caused by the stampede. This was covered by Al Jazeera, among other major news sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fourth, many of the sources that I consulted over the past few days (I'll look up more specific references later) point out that Burhanuddin's main legacy is turning the Dawoodi Bohras into a kind of business community. This book describes something similar, but doesn't directly attribute it to Burhanuddin. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: POV tag

I request that a POV tag be placed on the article. The previous section very clearly indicates that there is a dispute over the neutrality of the page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: - Instead flooding this article with tags again, efforts should be taken to address those issues. I object introduction of tags, and welcome discussion related to improvements should further be made to improve this article. I know there are some controversy thing missing from this article, and a POV tag is requested to place on top of the article for the same purpose. What I'm arguing here is, tags do not contribute to solve any issue. We should better compose a controversy prose taking into consideration multiple available reliable sources, discuss on the same and request the same as a part of edit-request. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Anupmehra Tags do not contribute, tags warn readers that what they're viewing does not reflect community consensus and points them to the discussion. It also informs readers about why the page is protected, which is otherwise a mystery. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I too Object the Same. Rukn950 (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This article might not include all aspects of the subject (this is why it is a C class article), but the present contents of the article is not disputed. It requires expansion not tags. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The accuracy of the content isn't disputed, the adherence to WP:UNDUE is. If we can quickly reach consensus on additions, that's fine with me too, I just don't see it happening right now. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-assumption is not going to help anyone. At least give it a try, if it takes too much, I'm fine with flooding article with tags. However, {{POV}} would not be appropriate tag, but {{undue}} be. I was involved here to improve the article, otherwise it already had tons of maintenance tags before. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

POV dispute

It is reported that Burhanuddin declared himself as the sole-owner of Bohra mosques and the sole-trustee of the community’s charitable properties. Under his ownership, Bohra mosques have become a playground for organizing birthday functions, cutting cakes, serving jamans [community dinner], arranging vadhavnis [Aarti of Syedna saheb], qadambosi, najwa [private meeting] and salam functions, mass marriages, meetings of politicians, putting cinema screen, video shooting, fund collection and lottery draws..By consolidating his absolute authority and becoming from Da’i-ul-Mutlaq to Qaderul-Mutlaq (Absolute in might), he took hold of all the trusts, properties and wealth of community and adopted a luxurious life of living in palaces, high-flying and big-spending..

In 1988, Syedna Burhanuddin cursed Muslim caliphs and the wife of Prophet Muhammad Hazrat Aisha openly during Moharram, causing a riot in Mumbai, in which five innocent Muslims lost their lives and properties worth lakhs of rupees were destroyed. It was reported in 1982 that Burhanuddin collected taxes which exceed Rs.11 crores each year from his half million followers in India Abid Adeeb, president of the Udaipur Dawoodi Bohra Jamaat, spoke of how the Syedna levies a number of taxes on the Bohras that had no sanction in Islam. Through his representatives or amils, he said, the Syedna extracted several crores of rupees from his followers annually, demanding payment on almost every conceivable occasion. Even prayer spaces in Bohra mosques in the month of Ramzan are now up for sale, he revealed. As a result of this, he said, the Syedna now presides over a multi-billion dollar empire.[8].

As per my information above allegation are false and has no legal standing. these edit have no encyclopedic value.both mr summichum and mr qwerty rely on single source ( the asgerali engineer and his progressive dawoodi bohra.) there are no other third party source. even milli gazette and pucl seems tobe quoting them. Rukn950 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

these above edit create animosity among peoples and disturb harmony. dawoodi bohra follow strong principle to respect all religion and expect same from others.Rukn950 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I oppose addition of the rediff source as an apparent WP:SPS, but you seem to be pushing your own POV here. The PUCL source is from 1982. "Your information" doesn't mean anything to me unless you can show me reliable sources, and if you do, they can be cited alongside the criticisms. "Harmony" is not among Wikipedia's stated goals, providing information is. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just coining the word Hagiography doesnt mean that BLP can be violated. I would request concerned editors to read BLP policies before indulging in any editing. there are certain allegations given above because the user are ignorant of the facts and google for the information. the users seems to add only controversial information which states their POV.If just sourcing the edits is justifiable and the integrity of the article be no concern then I could overwhelm this article with verifiable source edits. But then this article would become unreadable defying the encyclopeidic value of wikipedia.Rukn950 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwertyus Thanks for helping us in reviewing , I checked rediff: http://www.rediff.com/news/ it is a news website like many others quoted in the page. It is indeed a third party journalistic publication.User:Anupmehra is an Indian who can attest to it that rediff is a journalistic indian news soure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Who is more apt than the prime minister of India who speaks about Dawoodi Bohra [9]

• Narendra Modi [10]

• Prince Charles [11]

• Dr Rowan Willaims Archbissop of canterbury. [12]

• Baba Ramdev [13]

• India Tv report [14]

• Lt. Col. Juan Morris Jr., deputy superintendent of investigation with the New Jersey State Police[15]

The list will keep growing ..... and all my references are reputed publication. not like a minority group of progressive dawoodi bohra comminity whose sole purpose is to create dissension among actual peace loving Dawoodi bohra community.Rukn950(talk) 07:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith and also expect the same from my fellow editors. for in net, there is no shortage of references for any POV. We have to take great caution in any edit which may hurt other persons religious or moral sentiments,work together to achieve article of highest Wikipedia standards and protect this article to become EditWarZone.Rukn950 (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Those sources can only be cited for their own opinion, not to establish as fact the man's personality or the greatness of his actions. Rukn950, I'm getting the feeling that you are trying to push your own POV here ("actual peace loving Dawoodi bohra community") and your constant citing of policy stands in stark contrast to your idea of not hurting religious or moral sentiments. I've never seen that among the listed goals of Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Same thing can be stated about your edits.Rukn950 (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Do you think what you and summichum are trying to do, are not seen by other editors ? The above edits are complete Hoax.Rukn950 (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:   Administrators please take note that Criticism of Muhammad Burhanuddin (Dawoodi Bohra), which seems to consist of the text at the top of this section, has been created. --220 of ^Borg 10:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Succession POV

I just replaced {{undue}} by an outright {{POV}}. The reason is the following:

Burhanuddin is succeeded by his second son, Mufaddal Saifuddin as 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras.[19]Mufaddal Saifuddin was declared as successor in June ,2011 in London, and many times before.[20][21] However, this succession is not accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claims the title for himself.

This is Wikipedia picking sides for one claimant over another. I'm not actually going to edit this straight now, but for those interested in the references ([n] in the above quote, copied from my browser):

• [19] has the lede: "The challenge in the succession war in the Dawoodi Bohra community was out in the open on Tuesday, with a declaration by the claimants that they would take appropriate action shortly." Cherry picking if you look at what it's supposed to corroborate.{{failed verification}} is not appropriate.
• [20] and [21] do the same, but actually quote some followers' spokesman as citing one or the other party as being right in the argument to quote=.

I invite all fellow editors to set this straight. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Succession issue

In the succession para incomplete reports can not be presented in the name of summary. All the important facts reported in reliable sources are to be narrated in NPOV manner as these reports are directly involved/related with subject. Even the dairy facts, which are documentary evidences are justified for inclusion as per wiki rules [16], but removed as these are briefly mentioned as 1969 case and elaborated at referred main succession crisis article.

Mr.User:Qwertyus, may please have a relook at complete episode and details made available at controversy article and cooperate in presenting the matter in Wikipedia manner. It should reflect NPOV and relevant facts associated with main subjects are included. Please discuss the matter here before any further revision.--Md iet (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no such intention. You are cherry-picking and twisting sources. Your revert introduces yet another partisan source, that speaks of a "false claim to be the successor". It is you who are pushing a POV here. (Sorry, that wasn't very civil of me.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Court proceedings also reflect that Saifuddin's earlier 'pleading' of succession was showing "the source" as "the hospital bed", but after demise of late Syedna, "now the case is different. That pronouncement was made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011.

• • The references cited is not in conjunction with the statement. there is no mention "of hospital bed. It was not the reflection of the court that the pleading of succession was showing the source as Hospital bed, but that of the plaintif's."Rukn950 (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2014 Mumbai stampede

The stampede suffers from notability problems (see WP:NEVENT), but can be perfectly well described in the section about Burnahuddin's death. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is biography article. As this incident was somehow related with person, it has mention in the article. There is no need of describing the incident here.

If it is felt that the incident has notability problems, what is to be done with article is to be decided there and if not required it can be deleted or grouped with similar incidents.--Md iet (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be enough coverage of the stampede itself to drag it over the WP:GNG threshhold. Honestly the articles seem fine without merging, and this article already has enough problems on its own. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Events are judged by WP:NEVENT, which wants "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". All sources for the other article are from a two-day period. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

Just like in Dawoodi Bohra, 'criticism' done in the beginning of the article here. Sources used are Milli gazette and Tehelka.com type. Its again something fishy. May like to see please.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2014

ACHIEVEMENTS

1. Syedna was conferred the degree of ‘Doctor of Islamic Studies’ by Cairo-based Al-Zahra University. In the same year, he was conferred an honorary degree, ‘Doctor of Theology’ by Aligarh Muslim University, India, in recognition of his broad and liberal humanism, in 1969.
2. Syedna established the first college, Burhani College of Commerce and Arts, in Mumbai. At present, there are over 400 primary and higher level educational institutes across the world under the administration of Syedna in 1975.
3. Raudat Tahera, the mausoleum of Syedna Taher Saifuddin, was built by Syedna as a mark of eternal love and gratitude to his father. The then President of India Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed inaugurated it.
4. Syedna restored Al-Jame al-Anwar in Egypt, the fourth largest Masjid in the world built by Imam Hakim (AS) in 981 A.D. He also established the Burhani Qardan Hasana Trust (interest-free loan) scheme as per Quranic principles in 1982.
5. He established Burhani Medical Idarah, which organizes health awareness programmes world over in 2004.
6. Syedna reconstructed the 259-bed, multispecialty Saifee Hospital in Mumbai, which was inaugurated by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in 2007.

Reference: http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToPrint_TOINEW&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path=CAP/2011/03/25&ID=Ar01800

Juzers43 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree , firstly the reference is a special report which came as seperate issue as an advertisement , such a source comes under the category of self published(advertisement page \issue can easily be purchased in any tabloid) , the report itself is an advertisement littered with honorifics all over. Secondly there are various contradictions in the quoted advertisement , i.e it mentions BUrhanuddin constructed the hospital but actually it is disputed and adamjee peerbhoi is the main benefactor for the hospital, there are many more such false statements in the ad reference.Summichum (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions.

Quote of Dignitaries

If anyone has has question regarding this edits please discuss here and please don't try to revert it blatantly. as user:summichum is doing.Though he has his own point of view and is trying very hard to impose. just give other editors their due respect.Rukn950 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

it is a self published source , rather an advertisement souvenir , you are having a COI here. Also you have removed other duly referenced contentSummichum (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

i may have removed other source by mistake. i am sorry for that.Rukn950 (talk)

I am sorry I dont have any COI . I have done no such edits. yours surely shows COI by putting Criticism and on top of every dawoodi bohra related articles.Rukn950 (talk)

Please assume good faith when discussing. User:Summichum raises a valid point regarding this section; the source seems to be extremely one-sided, and possibly not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Bjelleklang - talk 23:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unavailable source

Please note that the source pointing to indiatvnews.com appears to be unavailable. Please provide another source for the material based on it, otherwise it has to be removed. Bjelleklang - talk 23:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms

@Summichum: In this edit you introduce two sources named "calf" and "sena". Can you please provide the details for these sources so they can be evaluated? Bjelleklang - talk 23:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the parts based upon these two sources until they can be found and checked. Bjelleklang - talk 23:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Section "Death"

The sentence " The funeral procession..... " is not as per cited reference having a lot of original research, giving altogether different meaning. It is giving message that stampede was during funeral procession and 'deliberate SMS' for 'sensationalizing' the death done.

The source depict message as fellows:

"Eighteen followers were killed in a stampede at Syedna residence, when they 'jostled' to get in to pay their 'last respect'. There was 'confusion' due to 'conflicting' messages for allowing of 'last glimpse'.(ref) "

Hope editors agree to it for change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.137.61 (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please edit 'Death' section as above.

You're right, the text does not reflect the source. Edited it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Already done in this edit by Qwertyus. If it is not what you were looking for, please propose your changes in "change X to Y" format and provide reliable sources that support the changes you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

First Death Anniversary, 6 January, 2015

"On the occasion of first death anniversary of Burhanuddin over three hundred thousand Dawoodi Bohra from all over the world gathered in Mumbai. CM, Maharashtra also meets Mufaddal to pay his tribute..

People offering tribute at Raudat Tahera on occasion of first death anniversary (2015) of Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin cremated here

Dawoodi Bohra (.3 to .4 million) doing mass sermon on occasion of death anniversary of Syedna Mohammad Burhanuddin under Mufaddal Saifuddin

CM, Maharashtra with Mufaddal on occasion of first death anniversary of late Syedna Burhanuddin, Jan 6, 2015

"

Please add above section in the article with images.

References

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

RS provided as per above, please edit.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Becky Sayles, there is no X. This is new section to be added with heading given. Please consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.133.82 (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

its a one time event hence not notable.Summichum (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

So was the man's death. I removed this event from the Dawoodi Bohra article because it's hardly important enough for an encyclopedic description of the whole community. If someone can write up a single sentence summary using a reliable source, I would support adding it here. (YouTube doesn't count, nor photos on Commons.)

However, in this context, I would point to the #Proposed merge with 2014 Mumbai stampede, where coverage of a much more widely-reported event was effectively blocked, so there's a potential disparity here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a notable historic event for the subject, where about one third of community gathered at one place and CM of state join it. Telegraph India is reliable source if not you tube. A summary with additional reports from reputed news channel Indian express and DNA added, please include the section above.125.21.153.160 (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The above edition proposed is self explainatory and directly related with subject of article. As advice by the editor above 'a single sentence summary using a reliable source' are given. Hope this is acceptable as per Wiki criteria. 125.21.153.160 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope there is no objections. Edit may proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.180.9 (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no further suggestions. Plz edit as per above.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

In section "Death" please change X:

"Burhanuddin ...

..them."

to Y: "Burhanuddin...

..them.

Maharashtra state head Devendra Fadnavis addressed the gathering in presence of Mufaddal Saifuddin.[]

Please include the images provided above.

References

• I object the proposed changes. It appears that someone has taken an oath or is on mission to add this "news" in all related Wikipedia articles. Please avoid tabloid. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anupmehra: The fact that Saifuddin led the ceremony might be significant. We could include that. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with including all these images. The page would turn into a photo album. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we may write that part that it was organized by his second son. Please do. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Qwertyus, would you like writing the sentence with single photo depicting Mufaddal presence?106.215.171.214 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope a single photo of Ceremony having Mufaddal seated would be acceptable and will convey all the messages. We may include. 106.215.159.70 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Section "Succession"

In the section following sentence: " After Burha ... London, Mufaddal was declared as his successor by Mufaddal's brother. "

may be changed to:

"After Burha ... London, 'it was declared that the Dai had appointed' Mufaddal Saifuddin as 'designate successor'."

This is exactly as per citation referred.

Any editor having objection may suggest.

Hello IP (106.215.141.7), when you write a comment on talk pages, please sign it typing four tildes (~~~~). Coming to your suggestion, that would actually confuse the situation. He was declared by his brother, saying it another way as "it was declared[..]" would alternatively suggest that it was without any dispute. Looking onto web, I found that the dispute is still on, and the other party, half-brother is awaiting Bombay High court hearing pending expected to happen sometime in next month ([17], [18]). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right, but 'by brothers' will also carry meaning that they have initiated the move. Although case is pending but this may also not be true.

Can it be written :

It is reported by his brothers present there that 'the Dai had appointed' Mufaddal Saifuddin 'as designate successor'.106.215.159.70 (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In this section third para: "After the Syedna ..resides",there is

Statement declaring Khuzaima 53rd Dai and he taking up offices. This don't have any citation. This is a critical issue needs reliable citation else to be removed.106.215.159.70 (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it appears that you are attempting to push your point of view here. It could also be said, that "Dai had appointed his half-brother, second-in command maznoon as legitimate successor years ago in 1965", but we would NOT write that as it has been challenged and disputed and is verified by secondary, independent and reliable sources (source). We only write what has been said in multiple reliable sources in our own words in a neutral way. Please avoid personal opinion and synthesis of sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not pushing any POV or trying to synthesis my own sentence. What the source say is: 'declared that the Dai had appointed'. I was trying to rewrite it to convey the same meaning. If there is source declaring 1965 incident we should also write same here.106.215.156.191 (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What should we write already has been written in here and there and what you are proposing in different wordings doesn't convey the same meaning. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The quoted words used in the source is not covered in present sentence. As per your explanation, the quoted word 'the Dai had" in the source are also subjudicial and it can't be used as it is, hence your analysis is right.

Present wording are also not depicting what the source want to covey. Can we do something? 106.215.190.215 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

The Matter written in the paragraph is not unique to dawoodi bohra. It is common between all Shia sects of Muslims. but cherry-picking and highlighting it here seems inappropriate.Rukn950 (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph in concern:

In 1988, Burhanuddin cursed Muslim caliphs and Hazrat Aisha Siddiqah openly during Moharram, causing a riot in Mumbai, in which five Muslims lost their lives.

References

Sources

It is absolutely shocking that an Encyclopaedia page should have references sourced from tabloid newspapers such as the Milligazette. This paper has a vested interest in slandering the Dawoodi Bohra community, and it is therefore very inappropriate and irresponsible to include sources like this.

It would be best if references were sourced from the Institute of Ismaili Studies or the Encyclopaedia of Islam which is no where near as biassed as these sources and are considered authoritative.

It seems very clear the Progressive Bohras want to have a monopoly over anything Bohra related on Wikipedia. This must stop as it paints an inaccurate picture of the Bohras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acader2 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger of 2014 Mumbai Stampede

While the 2014 stampede is related to the death of the Late Syedna, it will be inaccurate to redirect a user searching for information on that event to this page. This page represents the biography of an indidiviual. Hence, it should contain information about the life and times of the individual rather than a particular event that, in fact, happened after his death. The user proposing this change please cite which catagory of Purpose of redirects, this particular merger is related to? Aftab104 (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." You're wrong, events caused by the death of a person are often considered part of their biography. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mohammed Burhanuddin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

this article should in class A 116.74.117.138 (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Section "Activities"

I believe the article in its current form is very short. I have added some of the admirable achievements of the Late Syedna at the end of the activities section. Aftab104 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed those parts not corroborated by secondary sources. Also, please try to keep a neutral and factual tone. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks QVVERTYVS. Aftab104 (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that women had been called to a burqa is completely wrong. The attire is called "Rida" and does not involve a face veil (which is a distinguishing feature of the burqa). I have added a small description of the Rida to enrich the encyclopedia. Aftab104 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, please stick to sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Added some more verbiage on the community kitchen project with exact wording from the sources. Aftab104 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section of this article was lengthy and made extremely serious accusations against the subject. I know nothing about this topic, but I do know that a source like [19] or [20] is simply not reliable enough to support the kinds of strong statements being made here. As the subject of the article is recently deceased, and because the information is entirely unsupported by reliable sources, I'm taking it out until we can get something more reliable. agtx 00:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Agtx What makes you think the sources are unreliable? they are written by a third party journalist and is a reputed publication and the accusations are well recorded in the Nathwani commision report : a high level fact finding commission report which is also cited, besides other news sources are also cited. WP:DUE is violated if not all points of views are stated.Summichum (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what WP:DUE says. It starts off from the very beginning talking about reliable sources. The sabrang sources come from a website full of broken links, with no attributed author, and frankly no guarantees of reliability at all. This one is a first person essay, a primary source that again is not reliable, yet is the only source for accusations like "Dawoodi Bohra localities resound with stories of being threatened, ostracized, beaten and in some instances even being driven to suicide." Even if we take the rediff source to be reliable, it doesn't come close to providing support for that sentence. The Nathwani Commission Report itself is, as far as I can tell, not actually cited.

Then we've got the last paragraph, which makes mostly unsourced statements, and outright says things like "[r]efusal results into different forms of harassment and in much case excommunication and hence Burhanuddin should not be awarded." That's advocating a specific position, and is not even close to a neutral point of view.

I'm willing to allow that the Tehelka source seems decent, so perhaps the paragraphs about the financial troubles should be replaced. agtx 04:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

ok so please do the needful instead of completely blanking the section.User talk:Agtx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 10:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The Mumbai stampede should NOT be merged with this page. This page has received extensive damage since after The 52 Syedna's death. The page has also been Locked up due to Which no aditions or corrections could be made. Majority of the dawoodi bohra community, though educated and technologically literate, do not comment and express their opinions on the matters related to The 52nd syedna or his family. This is done out of love and respect for the 52nd Syedna. Now one person or a person claiming to be an organisation should not be allowed monopoly on pages of such revered and Highly respected personality and leader. Already the page has gone under significant changes and all the important information is lost and in its place is words crafted in such way that gives reader a mixed view of The 52nd syedna. I ask why should the Mumbai Stampede be merged here? Was syedna only known for such reason. I ask why the achievements section no longer shows The actual work of 52nd Syedna in restoration of of AL-Hakim mosque, Juyushi Mosque, Al-Aqmar Mosque,Lulua Mosque, Great Mosque Of Kufa, Imam husayn Shrine and Al Abbas Mosque along with his father The 51st Syedna[7], Saifee Hospital[8], SBUT development Project, and the syedna also helped in restoration of the famous Dome of the rock on Temple Mount in Old city of Jerusalem along with his Father 51st Syedna Taher Saifuddin. But instead that one person or a person claiming to be an organisation has reduced it and not even a handful of his achievements are shown. The awards and honors section previously showed that he was awarded with Ambassador Of Peace award and also showed the letters and awards given by the U.S. government, the Canadian government and many other governments of European countries as well as the Gulf Countries. Therefore it is clear that the agenda of that person or a person claiming to be an organisation, is to slander the image of syedna as wikipedia is the main source of information for every one today. Wikipedia SHOULD NOT MERGE the Mumbai stampede page and rather should check the achievements section and awards and honors section. That person, or a person claiming to be an organisation, has also after making these changes instituted a lock on page due to which no one could add correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.233.228 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Important Information Deleted

There have been significant changes made to this page,the most important information and data have been deleted. The Activities section has been changed and then the lock on the page prevents anyone to add the actual achievements. I have read this page before and previously the achievements section showed extensively the work done by the syedna, which included building of AL-Hakim mosque, Juyushi Mosque, Al-Aqmar Mosque,Lulua Mosque Great Mosque Of Kufa, Imam husayn Shrine and Al Abbas Mosque along with his father The 51st Syedna, Saifee Hospital, SBUT development Project, and the syedna also helped in restoration of the famous Dome of the rock on Temple Mount in Old city of Jerusalem along with his Father 51st Syedna Taher Saifuddin. All this information which previously used to appear on this wikipedia page has been deleted or erased and as there is a lock we cannot add it back. The awards and Honors section also is reduced as it previously showed the letters and awards given by the U.S. government, the Canadian government and many other governments of European countries as well as the Gulf Countries and also included how he was awarded the Ambassador of Peace. All this has been deleted or erased and the lock prevents us from changing it. Furthermore before the death of the syedna the words such as "Islamization" of the community did not appear on this page and sentences as "Islamization countered a trend toward assimilation into the larger (Hindu-oriented) culture of their neighbors that was prevalent under his predecessor, Syedna Taher Saifuddin" which tries to undermine the syedna's authority and tries to tarnish his name. The dawoodi bohra community is a Muslim community and therefore follows Islam and its traditions. I urge wikipedia to restore the deleted contents on Avtivities section and Awards and honors section OR to let us add it and then lock the page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.187.233.228 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016

he was he was 102 yrs old, not 98 as mentioned! 110.141.151.108 (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Rectification of Template

Children details in the main template is incomplete. The complete children list (in sequence of age) is as follows ;

Existing children 'X' list to be changed to 'Y' list:'Sakina Bensahaba, Batul Bensaheba, Syedi Qaidjohar bs. Ezzuddin, Huseina Bensaheba, Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, Malekul Ashtar bs. Shujauddin , Hozefa bs. Mohyuddin, Idris bs. Badruddin, Qusai bs. Vajihuddin, Ammar bs. Jamaluddin'.[21]

Correction may please be done accordingly.-Md iet (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Request change as above.--Md iet (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

Information Given are false 183.87.95.194 (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mohammed Burhanuddin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140208175533/http://freepressjournal.in/syedna-aali-qadr-mufaddal-saifuddin/ to http://freepressjournal.in/syedna-aali-qadr-mufaddal-saifuddin/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=114952

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)