Talk:Ebrahim Desai/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image of 'Mufti Ebrahim Desai

A picture has been uploaded claiming to be that of Mufti Ebrahim Desai. This is indeed laughable. The person in the image is certainly not Mufti Ebrahim Desai, but a another, rather unknown, 'Mufti Akbar Hazarvi.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.42.52 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Coatracks and blp

Please review WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP. It is not acceptable to use this article to discuss things unrelated to the subject of this article - like fatws on rape that are not discussed in secondary sources, and the opinions of others on rape. Hipocrite (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The article lost major parts of the biography an hour ago so to call it a coatrack is illogical. Secondly, fatwas are dependent on the mufti or scholar, in accordance with their sectarian background (multiple under Sunni even), who also issues them and therefore talking about secondary references is irrelevant, as there are usually not secondary references to fatwas for same reasons as mentioned before. The subject is related to fatwas, as that is what he is known for. The mufti issues the fatwa through his website, and the content was quoted exactly in context in own words in question to rape. As the article is back to a stub, it will take time finding sources and re-building the article. Expecting it to be done immediately, is unrealistic. Fragma08 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The mufti's actions regarding the fatwa seem to have been pretty well covered but reliable sources. - Schrandit (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We really need more analysis as to why a guideline applies in cases such as this. I simply don't see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'm wondering why all the detailed and mostly sourced information on Ebrahim Desai I added keeps being removed? Is it that Fragma08 wants to keep the biography limited to a few lines of controversial material? I really like to know why the edits I made - which seem more in line with Wikipedia standards - were undone? Fragma08 has axe to grind with Ebrahim Desai, it's obvious. He/she has undone my work every single time by wrongly calling it Vandalism. At-thanawi (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What is obvious? Personal attacks are very unbecoming. If At-thanawi has issues with me, this is not the place. This discussion here is limited to the article of Ebrahim Desai, and not personal issues, and I have no axe to grind with him. Maybe At-thanawi should keep in mind that such allegations could fall under the personal attacks and breach wikipedia guidelines, WP:ATTACK. It would be better for At-thanawi to discuss before reverting back changes, which in several instances were unsourced. One can not help but wonder, where At-thanawi got his information from. Also he failed to in every instance explain why he deleted the opinions as part of Desai's fatwa issuing when adding his information. Much supports that either Desai himself or his students have been reverting/editing this article, but I have not objected to either. So back to the topic, major parts of the article will have to be rebuilt and I welcome any sourced contribution there can be in building up the article but without removing the person's work. May I also remind At-thanawi that I did not make the last (now deleted) biography (more than a few lines). But I maintained it, as it was sourced.Fragma08 (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fragma08 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ask the Imam

This fellow, I'm sure, has issued hundreds of opinions about what Islam demands. We can't cherry pick the ones we think are most notable and worthy of inclusion. At a minimum, we'll need independent sourcing that has taken note of his opinions to at least consider inclusion, since that at least enforces some neutrality on us as editors.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no cherry picking as the article is under work. And the opinion is most certainly notable and the article is about a mufti and it is quite common to refer to the works and opinions of muftis and scholars in their articles. It is not acceptable to just remove something without taking it to talk first. You have not even bothered researching the topic which strikes as biased. I also doubt that you have gone through the entire article making sure everything remaining is notable yet no hesitation to include that. Fragma08 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Shall we just copy paste his whole website into the article? Saying "it's notable" doesn't make it so. As I've said, we'll need at minimum some independent, reliable source evidence that one view or another is particularly notable (and/or influential, etc, etc) in the context of his work and biography.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I said. 1) how do you know that the remaining information is notable and should be there? 2) when it comes to religious fatwas and edicts it is not exactly something that gets in the news like other things so your logic in this instance is flawed. 3) you removed a whole section twice without attempting a discussion first. 4) The words came from the mufti himself and it does not get any more reliablethan that. Fragma08 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I though we were talking about the information you want retained in the article. If there's other information you want removed, that would be a different discussion. By all means make a proposal. As a general rule, we should only really use his website for uncontroversial biographical stuff -- his age, where he went to school. For the rest, notability and due weight will be established by what independent, realiable sources have taken note of. If this is all confusing to you, try reading WP:WEIGHT WP:NOTE and WP:RS.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not confused at all except for the evident bias regarding the removal of this fatwa. But I would recommend you read up on WP:WEIGHT WP:NOTE and WP:RS and review the edit you have made. Fatwas and religious edicts are rarely covered by the press as it is something between the believer and the mufti and not really a public event. If the press had to discuss fatwas and edicts, they would get nothing else done. So in conclusion nothing hinders the mention of his fatwas and opinions. As the words come straight from him. We are not meant to pass judgement or discuss his views. And this iscommon if you review other articles regarding scholars and muftis. I would recommend you do. Because most of such articles do not match the stance you are claiming. Fragma08 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If things aren't taken note of by reliable sources independent of the subject, then they're not notable on wikipedia. (As far as I can tell, this guy isn't notable at all; take that problem up with the ARS). For what it's worth, your assertions that rulings and opinions by notable clerics aren't covered by the press are false. The notable ones, by notable preachers, frequently are.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My assertions are not false but yours are. I find that strange coming from you, who did not even bother examining the entire article before selectively and biasly removing a part which is notable. Most fatwas and opinions mentioned by clerics are most certainly not notable, unless you have a different definition of what notable is. Fatwas are not subject to public or press scrutiny unless unless people are actually watching these rulings. And most of the time the press is not and should not as religious edicts may or may not go hand in hand with what the general people think. And not everything cited on wikipedia is notable. I am not taking up aproblem with ARS but if you have a problem with his notability then you should. That would certainly bring more credibility to your blatant removal of one specific part of the article whilst leaving everything else untouched in a very biased manner without prior discussion. Fragma08 (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing notable about the rape fatwa. It's unadressed by reliable sources unrelated to the subject. Coatracking it into this article is a violation of BLP and NPOV. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is much notable about the rape fatwa and it is addressed by the mufti himself, which is as reliable as it gets. There is no coatrack issue and never has been. Rather that serves as a cover up in face of lack of argumentation. There is also no BLP issue as previously stated many times. An? Fragma08 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated on the different discussions about this guy, nowhere has it been shown that these particular opinions/fatwas have attracted any attention whatsoever in reliable sources. Yes, the information he has published himself can be used in an article, but only if it is demonstrated that it is pertinent to the article. We do not decide what is pertinent by a personal feeling on the matter. On that score, I would wholeheartedly agree that his comments regarding women are notable. Rather, we go by what has appeared in sources. That is why no one is kicking up a stink regarding the statement "He has said that jihad is acceptable against a country that doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to its' inhabitants", becuase that has been covered in an independent source. Quantpole (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources? The mufti's own website featuring his work and his own opinions are as reliable and notable as it gets and so his work needs to be included and his opinions should be featured. This has also been repeated several times in different discussions The opinions of scholars and muftis are pertinent to their articles and other articles on scholars too feature their opinions on various issues. The source is his own fatwa and that is a reliable source. Why should independent sources take up religious edicts and fatwas? That is neither their place or of interest. Mostly such things would be discussed on blogs, forums and such. So to ask it to be treated independently is ridiculous and shows lack of understanding for the nature of fatwas and simple religion.Fragma08 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia policies. The key here is that his own website is not an independent source. It is a primary source, and if you want some back up in policy about this then I suggest you read WP:PRIMARY. Quantpole (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are evading the questions and answers presented. Actually I find your suggestion amusing and absurd, considering that you have shown no scruples or hesitation in reverting the article back to a version clearly written by an adherent of Ebrahim Desai which was not only in breach with wikipedia's neutrality policy but also mentioned information not relevant and unsourced claims and contained links which were in breach with wikipedia rules on referencing. [1]. One might ask where was and is your hesitation with regards to notability when you have clearly not bothered to investigate the current version or past. Your hand up seems to be exclusively about the rape, which is puzzling. So your view is biased to say the least and I would wholeheartedly recommend that you read the wikipedia policies which you refer me to as your need is clearly great. And I recommend that you look at articles on scholars on wikipedia to understand that it is common to cite the opinions of scholars, imams, muftis which differs if you are i.e. deobandi and sufi. From your stance, great majority of these articles would lose most of their content if not be deleted completely. So your argumentation does not stick as there is no BLP issue. This has been pointed out to you several times. Fragma08 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Are there news sources that talk about this guy, other than what is listed in Google news? [2] Can someone search the languages he'd most likely be mentioned in? What do these sources talk most about him, or say he is most notable for? Dream Focus 21:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He's in South Africa. Most of the press in SA is in English.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fatwas don't really come into the press' limelight but that does not mean they can not be mentioned. Specially taking into account that his fatwas are often the subject of discussion among people out of interest. As he hails originally from India, some mention will be found in that language. Fragma08 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Until there are |reliable sources, it wont go in and this discussion is pointless. Verbal chat 16:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)