Talk:Mufassil Islam

Page retrieved

February 2023

• Started draft, as per: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 382 - Wikipedia X (talk)

March 2023

• Moved to main space, as per discussion with an admin. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Requesting_help_on_my_draft_(moving_to_mainspace)) X (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Detail of Islam being prohibited

@Rationmind57: The lede is supposed to give a brief overview of the subject. I don't see any need to include the prohibition right there, which should also be sourced by something secondary instead of just the primary source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Since he is a popular figure among Bangladeshis. He still has been known as a lawyer on other online platforms as he was known in the past.So that review was important for Bengali audience. Rationmind57 (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to be very careful when an article is about a living person. There is an entire policy when it comes to this type of article. You seem to have a vested interest in the subject, and I have to ask if there's any conflict of interest here, especially since you seem to be very keen on highlighting that he's prohibited from practicing in the UK. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

What is my vested interest? I proposed edits multiple times since you deleted my edits without verification. Rationmind57 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Secondly, in my opinion, I included one line in his overview and went on to add details down below. There is no interest in conflict involved. If someone is contributing to the article, please judge the merit of the information. Rationmind57 (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If an editor feels that his content was removed by mistake, which is why he proposed edits on more than one occasion, it does not mean that the editor is having vested interest. Rationmind57 (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Each and every single piece of information, which were mentioned in the overview have been mentioned down below. But you seem to pick and choose only my edits only and remove them from the overview despite me adding significant details in the body. Rationmind57 (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Your only edits at the time had only been to this article, so yes, I do harbour suspicions that you are a single-purpose account, especially when you had reverted my self-reversion after I felt that it was inappropriate to include in the lede to err on the side of caution for a BLP, after you continued to re-add it after you were told to take it to this talk page, and when you claimed that that review was important for Bengali audience.
Another big concern was you were introducing supposition as to why the subject had been prohibited from practicising law in the UK. If you're going to quote something use quotes properly, but again, the source being used is a primary one, and those face limited use; it is far, far better to include a secondary source that is reliable to corroborate whatever reason there is behind the prohibition. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Who told you I was including supposition or speculative information?

The information I included there is stated in the website. You need to click on the prohibition terminolgy under the person's name. That will suffice.

When I made those changes, I added comments to explain this issue. I did not come to the talk page since the information is already there in the source and there is no scope for debate.

The term 'suspicion' is derogatory and ridiculous. You are discouraging contributors from contributing to the article. If moderation is like that , people won't subscribe to wikipedia use in the future.

It is disgusting when someone acting as a moderator debates an information from a legit source. Rationmind57 (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It is you who dragged this issue for sometime. Now , you want to show I am keen to highlight someone's information calling me a single purpose account. I am contesting because I have been deprived of my right to contribute from a legit source. Rationmind57 (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you purposefully ignore this line "I proposed edits multiple times since you deleted my edits without verification" in my last message? Rationmind57 (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you purposefully ignore this line "I proposed edits multiple times since you deleted my edits without verification" in my last message and then calling me a sigle-prupose account to divert the academic discussion? Rationmind57 (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you taken the time to read WP:BLP, which this article falls under? There's a subsection, WP:BLPPRIMARY, which states that primary sources (like the one you were using) are to be used with extreme caution. I have no idea why you're claiming this to be an academic discussion when the dispute is anything but.

It is disgusting when someone acting as a moderator debates an information from a legit source.

Source applicability extends far beyond from just "legitimacy"; how far it's separated from the source (i.e., it being primary or secondary) is one of the factors that is taken into account, and even then it and other variables can be scrutinised to the point where there's an entire noticeboard dedicated to this type of article. Would you like me to escalate it there so more seasoned editors can take a look? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)