Talk:Nahid Angha

Untitled

To address some of the concerns flagged on this article, I have gone back to review the style of the article and to add more citations. This should address the style and citation content issues. COI is something I do not agree with. I am interested in the subjects I write on but hold no formal conflicting memberships nor do I retain any money or services for my efforts which are given freely to illuminate a subject area I find interesting and have followed for decades. Like the formal template issues, I invite discussion, questions and revisions where necessary or appropriate. I will be doing a major revision over the next few days to address concerns and see if I can improve the article according to wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBlakeRoss (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

Since this article is written like an ad, I plan to do a comprehensive rewrite.--Zaynab1418 (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with your rewrite.

1. It is out of chronological order (eg you have the founding of the international Association of Sufism under the heading EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION, something the subject did in her 40s or 50s.)

2. Numerous references have the incorrect author and no page # (eg #8.Ennaji, Moha (2016-05-30). New Horizons of Muslim Diaspora in Europe and North America. Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-55496-3.) This is the EDITOR of the Book and not author of the chapter which you have not specified. Page number is also missing. This is but one example of numerous mistakes.

3. My strongest complaint is that your revision reads like an attack which at best is mistaken and at worse, represents conflict of interest and slander. Your own partial and incomplete reference states the conflict Nader Angha had with his sister Nahid Angha was thrown out of court. So mentioning the contents of the complaints he failed to bring against her amounts to nothing more than gossip. The article is a Biography of a Living Person and the subject has rights. Any disputes will be mediated.

This biography will be revised again and all mistakes will be removed. DBlakeRoss (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

After repeated and conflicting complaints about tone, I decided it might help to once again attempt to tighten this biography up to the minimum components....after five years of outstanding complaints about BLP looks like Resume and Peacocking.... DBlakeRoss (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You've removed all the scholarly citations and almost all the remaining citations are self-published sources. The major works section now has no citations at all. Of ten citations, four are her own organization. Two are about her mother and one is about Shrin Ebadi. Zaynab1418 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I've attempted to remove the "promotional" tone by deleting awards section and anything else that seemed promotional in tone. I can replace ias.org references with 3rd party. No problem. If you have other suggestions or can point to remaning "advertisement" elements that should be edited or removed, please do so. DBlakeRoss (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any interest in slandering Nahid Angha. I've written many articles for Muslim women scholars and academics. You are aggressively trying to rewrite the article as an advertisement and are clearly connected to the subject of the article. You're the one who is violating the rules of Wikipedia by being connected to the subject, making false accusations against me, and writing like an advertisement. You've removed any useful biographical information to make the article into a promotion of Nahid Angha. What is my conflict of interest exactly? It seems like being a follower of Nahid is a massive conflict of interest. I'm not even a Shi'a. I'm not an MTO follower and have no association to them whatsoever. Zaynab1418 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@DBlakeRoss: I assume the 'slander' and 'gossip' you are referring to are the details about the International Association of Sufism in this version. There is no reason for this to have been removed unless the sourcing failed verification. As it stands, it appears that all of this information was well documented in published works. If at the time you had reason to believe that the information was 'incomplete' then the correct response would have been to complete it, not delete it. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It isn't an attack on a living person or slander to write about religious leadership conflicts. There are entire articles of the Karmapa Controversy, 11th Panchen Lama controversy, and the Succession to the 52nd Dai al-Mutlaq. Zaynab1418 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this long comment. I will read through it and reply to the various points you've raised as my time allows (over the next week). DBlakeRoss (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)