Jump to content

Talk:Jawad Naqvi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sayed Jawad Naqvi)

Proposed merge with Wahdat Ummat Ka Framoush Rukn, Rasm-i-Shabiri, Hussain as Waris-e-Anbia, The Candle of the Path of Allah, Defeated Velvet Revolution In Iran

[edit]

No need for a standalone article for each of the author's works, there is not enough material to fill out anything but a stub for these so we are better off covering the author's works on his own page in a section on his works. Readers are more likely going to find the material here than by looking up the book directly anyway, and a redirect should be placed on each page to direct them to its section on this page.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content change/addition dispute resolution 2020

[edit]

May 2020

[edit]

@Sharief123:! please list down your grievances here before doing another series of disruptive editing on the article.--Fztcs 19:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharief123:! I ask you again, please discuss here before doing another series of disruptive editing on the article.--Fztcs 05:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharief123: You removed Syed & Naqvi from page of Kalbe Jawad which are part of his name during this edit but you keep adding 'Allama' to Syed Jawad Naqvi which is a title and not allowed as per MOS:ISLAM, what sort of double standards do you follow? It is clear, your edits are based on your POV and are not neutral.--Fztcs 05:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharief123:, to continue to understand your edits/reverts/removals, I'll list down them, with my questions, it'll be great if you can discuss your changes here first and make it on article later if & when consensus is reached,

  • revision 957670072 Why are you insisting on duplicating this data into the lede which is already present in 'Career' section? Also, you keep inserting 'Allama' which is a title and not allowed as per MOS:ISLAM.
  • revision 957670251 Why are you removing the content & references? You are removing criticism aspect & citations and adding support aspect, this clearly case of POV push.
  • revision 957670879 Why are you removing the referenced content & the reference?
  • revision 957671261 Why you keep insisting breaking up section, also, the article is about Naqvi what is the point adding 'against Naqvi'?

Hopefully we can resolve this amicably.--Fztcs 08:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sharief123's comment begins here.(Mentioned to avoid confusion of other readers since he has not done proper indenting):

As per your question :

  • let it be as this page was befour this Controversy. So, I will ask this question to you why you insisting on duplicating this data into 'Career section' without any reason as it was already present in front section.
  • According to Wikipedia's policies Wikipedia do not accept any references from "Facebok", "YouTube" or "Istagram".These are not reliable sources because anyone can post whatever they want. Wikipedia only accept reliable resources i.e the official website of the person or other sources. Even if we accept the references that you have added, the Facebook page is not his "Official Page". Anyone can write whatever he want, so it's not reabile. I also told you before not to add unauthentic references and that they will not be accepted.
  • Again I told you that let it be as this page was. Without adding material -- such as facts, allegations, ideas, negative information and personal experiences and this also clearly of POV push.
  • I answered all your questions. Now I will ask you the question and answer these questions first and make it on artical later.
  • As I add many references which are neutral and are from official website but you are not allowing?
  • Why are you instant removing the title Allama on the page Allama Syed Jawad Naqvi. if the Syed Jawad Naqvis official (own) channel on YouTube state him as Allama . This is the link of his YouTube Channel:

Jawad Naqvi's channel on Youtube, many official sites and many learned scholars where addressed him as Allama then why you removing again and again this title? What is reason behind this?. There are many personalities which are not worth of this title but you are allowing them and those which are worth of this title and you are immediately removing them. It is clear, your edits are based on your POV and are not neutral.

  • As I told you many times that allow your own point of view, or your personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did many times to Allama Syed Jawad Naqvi. How do you know that he compare Azadari (mourning of Imam Husayn) and Tarawih without providing any better source and better reference. You listened 4min clip of 2hr kutba. How do you know what is truth? That is clear you adding you own point of view and your edits are based on your POV and are not neutral
  • So, it is humble request to you that Please stop your disruptive editing on artical Allama Syed Jawad Naqvi. As you are removing the title and adding allegations which are not allowed. As I told you this will reverted again and again continuously , not only by me by many users and non users because this topic voilates the masses and are not neutral. So, it will be better for you me to leave these Controversial topic Azadari and taraweeh on this page because nobody can explain this clearly and many masses will not allow this as it become own point of view and personal analysis which are not allowed. So. Leave this Controversial topic and let it be as this was befour this Controversy. Thank you.
Sharief123 (talk)
I do not have much background of the issues involved in this debate. But I observed it's going on over past several edits. It's good both of you came to discuss on talk page. I am not aware detail dispute resolution mechanism of Wikipedia but in my opinion if both of you go, issue by issue, section by section, point by point will help both of you and also others who will help you resolve the issues.
Best wishes to both of you in resolving your issues through constructive discussions. Bookku (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharief123: By your reply above, I deduce that you have to learn lot about Wikipedia, of many, first thing is having good faith, your premises of discussion is that I'm at fault, second thing is how to act on Talk Page, thirdly your POV may not be NPOV, WP is not fan-site or obituary that it only talk about positives and paints rosy picture of any thing. I think you are trying to own this article by blocking constructive edits like copy edits, restructuring of the article, addition of referenced material, removal of maintenance template, etc which are being done as per WP guidelines.
Now replying to your post above, I'll reply to simpler ones like 'Allama' and 'Lead & Carrier' first and complex one like 'Azadari and taraweeh' later,
  • Regarding Allama, as per WP in general MOS-Islam in specific titles & honorifics are not allowed.
Also, why did removed Syed & Naqvi from page of Kalbe Jawad which are part of his name during this edit but you keep adding 'Allama' to Syed Jawad Naqvi which is a title only, what sort of double standards do you follow? It is clear, your edits are based on your POV and are not neutral.
  • Lede & Career section : I have split the detailed info in the lead to a section as per MOS-Lead Section, I didn't duplicated any data, rather it was being duplicated by you in attempt to undo may edits.
  • I never added any Facebok reference, few like this one [1][2] in lead were already present, and few were added recently by you during this edit.
Regarding additions of various YouTube links in clubbed-citation 'Criticism of Jawad Naqvi over comparison of Tarawih & Majlis', I added them because many of them were from known beings like Maulana Syed Shahryar Raza Abidi, Maulana Abbas Irshad Naqvi, Maulana Agha Roohi, Swami Sarang and were posted by Channels which in actual life are reputed publication agencies of religious material like Graph Agency. There was no original-research involved, a single line reporting the controversy thats it and it's actions and reactions.
Also, please note that original following statement was not added by me but was added by User:Smsaifhaiderhussaini, I just tried to provide enough reference to this,

In 2020, Naqvi's video got viral on social media in which he is comparing [[Azadari]] (mourning of [[Imam Husayn]]) with [[Tarawih]]. Several prominent Shia scholars both from India and Pakistan condemned this comparison and criticized Naqvi for the same. Naqvi has also given controversial statements in the past as well which made him a controversial figure among Shias of [[Indian Subcontinent]].[3]

I believe that, if proper search is done, Urdu media like newspapers, etc can be found quoting this controversy.
Actually, it was you who added original research pov during your following edits,

In 2020, Allama Jawad Naqvi's video got viral on social media in which he says about [[Azadari]] (mourning of [[Imam Husayn]]) and [[Tarawih]]. Several Shia scholars both from India and Pakistan condemned this statement and make propaganda against Allama Jawad Naqvi. Many learned scholars and people from both India and Pakistan shows support for Allama Jawad Naqvi and condemned the allegations and propaganda against Allama Naqvi.

Basically what your are trying to do is either you want your pov or you want to keep article in the state because it suites your POV. This is very much clear by your other edits like,
1- Why did you removed following? Is it not referenced properly?

In 2019, Naqvi termed [[Aurat March]] Organisers ‘Most Evil Of All Women’.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Religious Scholar Jawad Naqvi Terms Aurat March Organisers ‘Most Evil Of All Women’|url=https://nayadaur.tv/2019/04/religious-scholar-jawad-naqvi-terms-aurat-march-organisers-most-evil-of-all-women/%7Clast=Daur%7Cfirst=Naya%7Cdate=2019-04-10%7Cwebsite=Naya Daur|language=en-US|access-date=2020-05-13}}</ref>

2- Why did you reverted multiple edits by User:Dr. Hamza Ebrahim without giving any reason when he provided clear description of his reason behind the edits,
edit(s) on 2020-02-20 - reason provided: No citations were provided for PhD thesis/research articles that could support the claim.
edit(s) on 2020-03-29 - reason provided: Jamia Urwa tul Wusqa isn't a degree awarding institution recognized by HEC. Also your personal verification can't be a source on Wikipedia. You need to provide verifiable information, like his online thesis and the name of the university that awarded him those PhD's. Or his scholarly publications, published in internationally recognized journals, if he has any.
edit(s) on 2020-04-21Writing that he has 3 PhD's is misleading. He was never awarded a PhD degree, neither has he published articles in academic journals. For more information on PhD degrees, please have a look at this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy
Earlier you have been in serious content war with User:Tubi719
  • Also, why did you removed maintenance templates like, {{BLP sources|date=May 2020}}, {{Primary source inline|date=May 2020}}?
Your above edits clearly show that you are trying to own the article and are accusing of others of POV-push when it is quiet evident by your edits that you yourslef are trying to maintain your POV on the article by reverting/harasing/blocking other users not adhering to your POV on the article.
@Bookku: Thanks for your reply, you are more than welcome to partake in the discussion as you too are WP editor.
--Fztcs 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ Sharief123 My opinion is not binding on either of you. On 1st of first 2 points, personally I feel there is no point in insisting about titles & honorifics on Wikipedia. If Faizhaider does not remove it somebody else will push through Wikipedia rules today or tomorrow. You find titles & honorifics in some Wikipedia article does not make a good excuse, people will say go & remove those and remove from here also.Two wrongs do not make one right
2nd Point @Faizhaider about Aurat March utterances issue is it possible to find some more refs.If not then it's ok to wait for more refs.
It seems there seems already some other reliable refs used in article which refer to Women related issues and those can be presented in mean while.
Greetings to you both Bookku (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input @Bookku, your inputs are appreciated.--Fztcs 05:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. First of all thanks to @Faizhaider for showing me having good faith as I was not aware about this. I apologise for some mistakes that I have done because of less experience in this platform but you have more experience, you should be more concerned about his matter and should be more neutral. As if anybody appears to contradict with enthusiasm and are adding Commentary own point of view, or own personal analysis to article which are allowed in wikipedia policy and that time you should be more neutral and should corrected them as many times you have done. I am not trying to own this article but I am trying to become a better editor. @Bookku thanks for join Fractiously in this debate. Two do not make one right but they make good excuses. @Bookku and @Faizhaider

If sometime it seems wrong or fault then I am here to correct it. Your answers are appreciated. Thank you very much... 

Sharief123 (talk) Sharief123 (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
[reply]
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHRYBe2IqUI

June-July 2020

[edit]

I thought that this case is settled but it seems but it seems Sharief123 is back to again removing sourced content on flimsy pretexts. First of all I haven't added the content, I just reverted the unexplained content removal which constitutes vandalism at worst or censorship at best. The content is properly sourced based on reference on leading Urdu daily of India, over all the content only mentions that "Indian daily and weekly Urdu newspapers Sahafat and Nauroz published articles critical to him." and "Indian daily and Urdu newspaper Sahafat and Hindi newspaper Bhumitra again criticised his May 29, 2020 Friday sermon", I don't see where comes original research or advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything.--Fztcs 18:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, By your discussion on talk page , I deduce or understand that you have to learn lot about Wikipedia, of many, first thing is having good faith, your premises of discussion is that I'm wrong , second thing is how to act on Talk Page, thirdly your POV may not be NPOV even if you don't have 14 years of experience in this platform. According to Wikipedia's policies Wikipedia do not accept any references from "Facebok", "YouTube" or "Istagram".These are not reliable sources because anyone can post whatever they want.Anyone can say whatever they want or say against or in support. There should be neutral and should not add controversials statements. So it's not reabile. I also told you before not to add unauthentic references and that they will not be accepted.

So let's talk about the Newspaper. As I told you that Sahafat daily newspaper published from Lucknow in which they contained Allamah Syed Jawad Naqvi as jwad naqli and they are contravened. There are many newspapers which are in support or against but we shouldn't add in wikipedia articles. So, please refrain from these drapable edits. If you add again and again nagative point or baseless statement at this page , you may be blocked from editing.

Sharief123ᗙ Sharief123 (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharief123: The content you are trying to remove is based on news articles. So, please correct yourself and stop whining & ranting on my talk-page, if you want to discuss anything you are free to do it here on article's talk-page. You are simply trying to censor the criticism.--Fztcs 08:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I get by the edits of Sharief123 is that he trying to censor all the criticism on this article even if they are properly sourced and adds favourable things even if they are not verifiable, he has been involved in edit-warring since very long on this article. He seems to be very biased and guided by his POV and not by wikipedia policies, on top of that he uses bogey of the policies to intimate and harass other editors. He is simply trying to own this article under guise of good faith and what-all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.142.206.26 (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just now noticed, majority of the comment above is my comment which I had done earlier on same talk-page, e.g. "By your discussion on talk page...your POV may not be NPOV", it has been plagiarized by Sharief123 and now being used against me.... And I don't understand why people can't indent their comments Facepalm Facepalm ! --Fztcs 18:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, first of all it feels very delightsome and Like smile grows to see your anxiety, haste and embarked. The content you added is wrong in which they alleged to him and are contravened. They addressed him with awrong name and mislead masses which is not acceptable. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This vitiation and feud contents will be removed because this doesn't follows the Wikipedia community standard. If you have right to whining & ranting on my talk-page then why I didn't. I'm not trying to censor the criticism but trying to praise you.... Be neutral Wikipedia is not for promoting or publicising anyone or anything.

Sharief123ᗙ 

Sharief123 (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharief123: Your edit to censor criticism of the subject of the article has been reverted.--Fztcs 12:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Sharief123

[edit]

I'm bedazzled by recent edits by Sharief123, they added flowery language using peacock terms and added links which hadn't any content to support what they were put to cite. Also, most of existing matter which is cited using third-party reliable sources was removed including any and all the criticism. The edits were clearly pov push and so I have undid them restoring the article to previous state. I'll ask more experienced editors and wiki admins to look into the matter and ensure the neutrality of the article.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article which was even previously not in very good shape has been turned into propaganda piece laced with dubious links all over the article, which have no matter in support of the text they claim to support. I'll ask editors Faizhaider, Alivardi, Materialscientist, Bookku, Dr. Hamza Ebrahim to please review the recent changes made by Sharief123.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14.142.206.26, I agree with your analysis but I as of now don't have time to waste in fighting over this article, which is of least importance to me, and I have not touched this article in last 3 days, as I'm busy on improving other articles. Anyways, now various editors too have an eye on this article, may they can help. FYI, I have reported the user for edit-warring, you can find details on the user's talk-page. Happy editing.--Fztcs 11:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution talk post ANI/EW result/suggestion

[edit]

discussion is here.

[edit]

Following discussion happened on User talk:JzG,

Regarding recent edit @ 'Syed Jawad Naqvi'

Hi!, it is regarding your this edit @ article Syed Jawad Naqvi. I checked the ".xyz" links, they seem to be image repository of the archive of sahafat.in, website of a print newspaper. The links in this case don't look like to be spam. Can you please give a look? Thanks.--Fztcs 15:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Faizhaider, is it an official repository? If not, it would probably be a WP:C issue. Any idea? Guy (help!) 15:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The link to .xyz flows from main website, it is like,
http://www.sahafat.in/index.html has a menu link to http://www.sahafat.in/archive_index.html, where, on selection of a date, archived newspaper is loaded in image format, the location of this image is at www.sahafat.xyz; so it seems to be legit.--Fztcs 16:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you please let me know if in this case ".xyz" domain is okay to use? Thanks.--Fztcs 09:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll be reverting your edit, if you feel otherwise you can undo it.--Fztcs 19:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

based on this I'm reverting the edit by User:JzG on this article. --Fztcs 19:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"sahafat.xyz" is in the whitelist.--Fztcs

RFC

[edit]

Greetings to all,

A Request for comment has been initiated regarding RfC about whether to allow use of honorofic 'Allama' with the names or not?

Requesting your comments to formalize the relevant policy @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for informing here.--Fztcs 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution talk post ANI/EW result/suggestion

[edit]

Previous related discussion @ Content change/addition dispute resolution 2020

@Sharief123: I'm opening this discussion as per suggestion of Darkwind on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sharief123_reported_by_User:Faizhaider_(Result:_Page_protected ANI/EW. I, also invite other editors, Alivardi, Materialscientist, Bookku, Dr. Hamza Ebrahim, 14.142.206.26, Smsaifhaiderhussaini, Tubi719, etc. to contribute to this discussion and reach a consensus and a solution to current disruption on the article.
I'll suggest Sharief123 and others to list down point-by-point the issues they think are there on the current version of the article and any further proposed changes to the article before making any further edits .--Fztcs 06:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier too I suggested to sort out easier issues first, so article will get semblance of some stability and easier for those who will be helping out in dispute resolution.
1) It would be pertinent to note that issue of use of honorofic 'Allama' is under discussion at the on going RFC. And hopefully will be sorted out in due course.
2) Initially I thought issue of section "Views on Women's role" is now written neutral enough, and for couple weeks saw it been stabilized. I don't know why did it succumbed to edit war again.
3) Other than first RFC for rest of issues if they can deliberate which sources they can agree upon as acceptable will help stabilize and sorting out to an extent. I think acceptability of primary and secondary both sources can be deliberated separately. If needed go for RFCs on acceptability of those sources.
4) After having agreement on which sources to be acceptable then find out exact 'claimed controversial statements' one by one which appear on acceptable sources.
If in acceptable source then it would be okay to refer to original statement from primary statement and translate it along with the context. :Then deliberate how to put criticism from acceptable source in neutral terms
@Darkwind: IMO difference of view may not be limited to language barrier but some amount of difference of perception including that of context and it shall need methodical steps and co-operation from both sides to sort out issues and stabilize article. Probably a little longer protection of the article might help. 48 hours may be a bit short IMHO.
Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwind:, I agree with Bookku (talk · contribs), there seems to be fundamental difference among editors regarding the wiki policies and which links are reliable sources. As per {{user|Sharief123}, all links (including FB pages) of organizations associated to Jawad Naqvi are official & reliable but the sources which are critical to him even if they are from reputed & leading newspapers are not reliable. In fact his most recent edits were based on this view only. While issue of use of honorofic 'Allama' is under discussion at the on going RFC, Sharief123 raised the stakes by adding even one more title Ayatollah to the article. On other pages he has been removing the honorifics but in this page he keeps adding them, now, what should we make out of it? The situation is really complicated and will take more than 48hrs to resolve. Hoping for the best.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwind:I agree with above two editors, that we'll need more than 48h to address all the issue, that too if all the involved parties engage, it is already 24h+ and till now there has been no response from Sharief123 (talk · contribs), and he has definitely been active since posting of messages on his user talk-page, at WP:AN3, and here on article's talk-page. Does anyone think that this matter can be settled in next 12h-14h?--Fztcs 00:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that everyone involved has participated at least a little bit in this discussion, I am less concerned that anyone will jump back into editing disruptively. Allowing everyone to edit the article will allow you all to make individual changes as they are agreed upon, instead of having to wait for some hypothetical "perfect" edit consensus. That being said, if the disruption resumes, technical measures or other sanctions may become necessary, including protection or blocks.
As for the content dispute itself, in order to remain an uninvolved administrator on this topic, I am not planning to take part in your discussion here other than providing initial suggestions about how to communicate, and lightly moderating the discussion if that proves to be needed and helpful. As editors who are more familiar with the subject matter, you all are the best ones to weigh in on the specifics of the dispute, once they are clear.
Therefore, no particular need to ping me in this discussion unless you need moderation or reach an impasse and want suggestions on where to turn. –Darkwind (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharief123:, greetings again. As suggested by admins I wish and request to rejoin this discussion. I have suggested one way of deliberating and resolving issue on talk page. If you have any other chronology of deliberation and resolving you can put it forward and discuss.
In my honest opinion pl. do see if these points would be helpful 1) As earlier said discussing which sources to be acceptable will be helpful 2)Only Personal opinions of Wikipedia editors are original research; personal opinions of authors of sources (external to WIkipedia) when chosen for Wikipedia article does not remain original research of Wikipedian. - I think at this point there is some misunderstanding that's why I suggest to revisit what do we mean by original research. 3) Covering of existent criticism in other agreed source in itself not non neutrality.- Rather covering only positive mentions but not covering criticism would be non-neutral
Just see if all are on the same page for above 3 points, if not then try discussing a little more about them to find if it helps resolving issues. Thanks and regards. Bookku (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, there is much-lauded discussion on me and discussion is good for resolving but as per Wikipedia policy I was reverting those edits which was voilating Wikipedia'sneutral point of view. Those contents which was voilating masses and blaming a public figure and Scholars . The editor who reports me was also adding contents which was not neutral like adding original research-such as facts, allegations, ideas, negative information and personal experiences-for which no reliable published source exists; it also encompassescombining published sources in a way to imply something that none of the explicitly say. If you think that I made mistakes then you have right to take action against me. So, it is the request to Darkwind that this should be emphasized that those contents which are not neutral, blaming, contravened, Antagonism or opposing should be removed and As per neutral point of view policy, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it".

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".

But the content added by faizhaider was totally opposite of this. Like adding references from YouTube which are not reliable sources. There is many more references from "YouTube"in which they are abusing, Againsay, contradict, and addresses by awrong name but I was reverting those edits but again faizhaider added Controversy and overhastiness and also added complicated topics. According the ip editor and faizhaider , if there is permission of adding the Contravened contents then why there is not permission of support? Why there are added Controversial statements and why references was removed which was from official website. So, Senior editors Darkwind , Materialscientist ,EdJohnston , Tubi719 etc have a look on artical and edits by Faizhaider . Why shape of article changes since at least late April After coming back of Faizhaider on 17 April 2020.

So look at article and all history from April.Bookku you should consider what I'm saying. Thank you!

Sharief123ᗙ ) 03:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sharief123, I'm glad you came to participate in the discussion. I have some very minor technical suggestions for you, to start. First, It would be easier for others to follow exactly who you are replying to, and when, if you indent your paragraphs using a colon : for each level of reply. See WP:THREAD for basic instructions, and WP:INDENT for more details. If you have things to say in response to more than one person, I suggest you break up your reply into multiple posts, and put each one under the comment you are replying to. Second, it looks like your new signature has some italics that don't have a closure -- that is, you have a '' without a matching closing pair at the end. This might cause some people to have trouble reading your comments or posting after you.
Now that's out of the way, I just have some suggestions for how you can effectively explain what you want to change in the article, and why you want to change it.
Be VERY specific. If there's a sentence you think should be changed because it's not neutral, it is OK to copy and paste the sentence onto the talk page, and then say which words you think are not neutral and why. If you think a particular sentence or paragraph is original research/synthesis, then copy/paste it (or at least say "the paragraph starting with ... and ending with ...") so people know exactly what words you object to. Same with sources -- copy the URL, or reference the source by number (it helps, if you do that, to also include the permanent link to the page at the time you looked at it, because source numbers can change).
This means, don't just say "look at how the article changed since April", say "look at this sentence (or paragraph) from this edit". Don't just say "unreliable source from YouTube", give the paragraph and source number or link. This is important because things that might be neutral in one context can carry a specific non-neutral POV in another context, so it can be hard for uninvolved editors to understand why you don't agree with the content of an edit.
Hopefully, this will help you get started on a productive discussion. –Darkwind (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, As User:Darkwind suggested let us focus on article's line by line discussion. Bookku (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.--Fztcs 10:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let us do it.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of events

[edit]

Following is chronology of edits since Nov 2018,

  • Starting Nov 2018, in these 28 edits by Sharief123, lot of unsourced material was added to infobox & main-article, also, term Ayatollah was prefixed in the lead (previously it was simply, 'Syed Jawad Naqvi'), part of this was reverted, which followed and edit-war, so, even in first case of the edits by Sharief123, it was challenged which resulted in edit-war.
  • The first edit-war spanning almost 4 months with 90+ edits by 18 users. Lot of things happened in-between like addition of Ayatollah, and other info which were reverted and the added back. At the end, lot of un-referenced material survived, during these Sharief123 at many times cited youtube & facebook in suuport of his claims, so much that article was left with couple of those links at the end of it (in support).
  • Two weeks of lull], during course of 16 edits by 2 users (not Sharief123), few more non-cited updates/additions made to infobox & a youtube ref was added (in support) few of these were reverted by Sharief123 during these edits couple of days ater but yt & fb links were not.
  • One and a half month of lull], during course of 10 edits by 7 users (not Sharief123), not much was done apart from few typo fixes & maintenance-tags updates' but 'Allama' was changed to 'Mulla' which was reverted by Sharief123 during these edits, where another honorific-prefix 'Hojatoleslam|Hujat tul Islam' was added and other minor updates were done.
  • Seven months of edits involving 44 edits by 13 users (not Sharief123), honorific tussle continues, some re-structuring is done including removal of major chunks of un-referenced material, but some new un-referenced material also creeps in, aome more yt refs added. Major chunks are removed from 'Allegations' sections.
  • Another edit-war involving Sharief123 on the degrees/PHDs/etc. spanned around three months during which 19 edits by 9 editors were made, ultimately other editors gave up (despite their sound ground & logic) and Sharief123 prevailed. By now the article is full of un-referenced material and fb & yt, blog refs or primary refs at best in support of the subject, the refs which may be categorized as RS are mostly in Controversy, Allegations & Works sections. In next two weeks 7 more edits by 6 editors were made some tweaks and adding list of books by Naqvi. Now article has turned into major pov slanted to paint rosy-picture of the subject involving peacock terms and unsupported claims.
  • 3 edits by same user added some material to 'Controversy' section based on YT link. Please note that still the article had FB, YT & Blog refs in support of subject and were never challenged by Sharief123.

By now it is May 2020 and I have not made single edit to the article.

  • My first three edits on the article, I removed 'Allama' as per MOS.
  • Another edit-war starts, Sharief123 makes 5 edits, restores the title 'Allama', removed YT link from controversy and reworded the text to suite Jawad Naqvi's narrative.
  • I restored the revert, and did some re-structuring the article, added several YT links (clubbed together as a single ref) and few misalliance-tags.
  • Sharief123 reverts, the changes during course of multiple edits, which were restored by me, which were again reverted by Sharief123, which was again restored by me.
  • Sharief123 reverts again and makes series of edits in which he removed refs from 'pakistantoday.com.pk' critical to Naqvi and added couple of FB refs in support of Naqvi, I restored the material but left the FB links in support, and they were again reverted by Sharief123
  • Edit-war continues for over one month spanning ~50 edits by 10 editors, by now several refs from Indian newspapers have been added and the controversy YT links have been moved to 'External links' section, other YT & FB refs are removed and cn-tags are placed, some other sourced material like 'Views on Women's role' and 'The Role of Women towards the System of Wilayat' is added, also, some restructuring like 'Early life and family details' & 'Career' are made
  • Sharief123 removes all the Indian newspaper links saying that "Original research and own point of view is not allowed", and he also removed External YT links.
  • During two weeks ~20 edits by 3 editors are made during which titles were removed and added back, referenced materials were removed and added back, unsourced-content was removed, previously sourced content was restored and external yt links were restored too.
  • This set of edits by Sharief123, he tried to revamp the article, removing most of the material critical to Jawad Naqvi and also removing most of the third-party sources basing the article mainly in primary one, breaking at least one ref, this version has at least one YT ref, he even added Ayatollah to the lead. Later, article's previous version was restored but Sharief123 reverted it back to new version and FB link in this edit.
  • Ten edits by 8 editors were made during which maintenance-tags were added and removed, reverts were done and finally article was locked.

As, can be seen by chronology, Sharief123 has been center of all the edit-wars on this article since Nov 2018 (ie his first edit on this article), he has been loggerhead with many editors, I have been only involved on this article for barely last two months.
Now, we have two options,

  1. either we fiddle over the above edits, and do postmortem of them
  2. or we analyze the current state of article and discuss it line by line to see if stands scrutiny and are as per WP policies.

Whatever the esteemed editors decide.--Fztcs 08:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by moderator & editor (in previous section), we'll go ahead with the second option i.e., "analyze the current state of article and discuss it line by line"--Fztcs 10:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Faizhaider: thank you! for your chronology compilation. Yes, we should go with option 2.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, Thanks @Darkwind:. I have problem with this sentence :-
In 2020, after his alleged comparison of Azadari with Tarawih during a lecture, Indian daily and weekly Urdu newspapers Sahafat and Nauroz published articles critical to him. Indian daily and Urdu newspaper Sahafat and Hindi newspaper Bhumitra again criticised his May 29, 2020 Friday sermon, for targeting Indian Shia leadership.
Naqvi, after his alleged comparison of Majlis with Tarawih during a lecture in 2020,
These are the reference added by Faizhaider from 'YouTube' which are not neutral and are contravened, blaming and abusing with awrong name(These are in Urdu language). This should be removed.
We'll come to them while we are doing line-by-line analysis with content of the article but to give one liner reply here,
I have worded "In 2020,...leadership" to best of my capability and cited using the newspaper links. If it can be worded better we'll see while the anaysis/discussion.
The YT links are not being used as references but have been listed in 'External links' section.--Fztcs 01:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article's line by line analysis/discussion

[edit]

As suggested by moderator & editor (in previous section), we'll go ahead with the second option i.e., "analyze the current state of article and discuss it line by line". I'll put each section/sub-section one-by-one from start and with it put my anaysis of it, others are welcome to put their analysis/views on it and then if there is any conflict we can resolve it by discssing and reaching consensus.--Fztcs 10:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good to begin with easier ones. Bookku (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Faizhaider: As you go to analyze the current state of article and discuss it line by line, I suggest you to see first Allegations and Controversies because this is main point of edit war and is vitiation. So it will be better.
@Faizhaider: You leave it and go for 'Allegations Controversy' which is main point of editwar. So, end this and discuss on "' allegations and Controversies'" that will better!
-2020-07-17T18:25:35‎ Sharief123 talk contribs‎
@Sharief123: I think the current approach is fair and correct, and is agreed by few of us. Before even these changes to "'Allegations and Controversies'" were made there has been edit-war on this article. We should review full article, one by one from top to bottom. By this approach nothing will be left out. And, you should make your mind, youtube is accepted as source & reference or not?--14.142.206.26 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharief123: based on other editor's input (till now), "analyze the current state of article and discuss it line by line" is the consensus approach for dealing the situation.--Fztcs

Infobox

[edit]

Let's start with Infobox, article currently uses 'Infobox officeholder' shoudn't it use 'Infobox religious biography' aligning with articles lead i.e. "Jawad Naqvi is a Pakistani Twelver Shia cleric, religious leader and Quran interpreter."?--Fztcs 10:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'Infobox religious biography' is better suited for this article. But, let other editors too give their opinion.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's very good to begin with easier ones. @Sharief123: your opinion on which infobox to be used, please. Bookku (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The info-box contains a link to website http://www.islamimarkaz.com/web/ which seems to be sort of video library/catalogue with no description. The site in it's footer provides links to following other sites,
Point to note is that none of these sites provide much (in fact any) info about Jawad Naqvi, or at least I was not able to find it.--Fztcs 05:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should come back to info-box and do the cleanup at end, based on the changes in the article.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

The honorific Allama & description Pakistani Twelver Shia cleric, religious leader and Quran interpreter.

  • For Allama there is already an RFC open for it, now the question is weather we should retain the title till RFC is finalized or should wait for conclusion of RFC?
  • IMO, there is no question him being Pakistani, Twelver, Shia, cleric
  • Regarding religious leader & Quran interpreter, Ref-1 describes him as, "“Hujjatul Islam” Syed Jawad Naqvi, the iconic Head of Jamea Orwathul Wuthqa, a new Islamic University in Lahore, Pakistan.", no mention of religious leader or Quran interpreter, until these two are supported by body of article, we should remove them.--Fztcs 06:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Religious Leader and Qur'anic interpreter, his official chennels like
"'Tafseer e Quran"'
"Qur'anic interpreter". www.youtube.com.
And "'Hikmat e Ali as"'
"Qur'an translation". www.youtube.com. in which he translates the Qur'an. In his official website "'islamimarkaz"' there are many vedio of religious leader and many more. If you go Pakistan there will be many examples.
-2020-07-17T18:25:35‎ Sharief123 talk contribs‎
@Sharief123: You should make your mind, youtube is accepted as source & reference or not?--14.142.206.26 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the IP above asked, should we use YT links for references/citations to support text in the body of the article?--Fztcs 01:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most content on Youtube is not reliable, especially for a BLP article.VR talk 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then as per user VR, we do not have source/reference for religious leader & Quran interpreter, we should go ahead and remove them. and, we should remove 'Allama as per MOS and RFC.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we do not of proper references (poorly referenced), we should remove them as per BLP as User:Vice regent pointed out.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and family details

[edit]

We have no reference for,

  • 5 March, 1952 in
  • Haripur, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Thus info is also used in info-box, if no citations are available we should remove this section and may be put "There is no information available regarding early life and family details of Jawad Naqvi".--Fztcs 05:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not of proper references (poorly referenced), we should remove them as per BLP, and update the infobox accordingly.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Career

[edit]

Whole paragraph solely relies on ref "Raheislam monthly magazine vol. 26-page 42", which on googling not even returns a single relevant result. As such this reference in non-verifiable. The section has been marked for needs additional citations for verification since May 2020 and seemingly no attempt has been made to address the issue.--Fztcs 05:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should remove poorly referenced material as per BLP.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sharief123 has given two Facebook video links as reference to rely on about the career part in following section. He believes since it was in event introduction it should be accepted. What views others do have about the same?
Let us be to the point, Is it okay to accept offered references.
Bookku (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think FB, YT, Blog, etc are acceptable sources for BLP. In fact User:Sharief123 have earlier himself pointed out non-acceptability of those sources, to quote his earlier comment,

According to Wikipedia's policies Wikipedia do not accept any references from "Facebok", "YouTube" or "Istagram".These are not reliable sources because anyone can post whatever they want. Wikipedia only accept reliable resources i.e the official website of the person or other sources. Even if we accept the references that you have added, the Facebook page is not his "Official Page". Anyone can write whatever he want, so it's not reabile. I also told you before not to add unauthentic references and that they will not be accepted.

So, he is contradicting not only himself but WP policy.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about this "posted by Channels which in actual life" . I follow the same when I added two interviews of Allama Jawad Naqvi and was in actual life.
earlier Comment

"I added them because many of them were from known beings like Maulana Syed Shahryar Raza Abidi, Maulana Abbas Irshad Naqvi, Maulana Agha Roohi, Swami Sarang and were 'posted by Channels which in actual life' are reputed publication agencies of religious material like Graph Agency. "

@14.142.206.26: Have a look on this, Faizhaider is also contradicting not only himself but WP policy also.
-Sharief123ᗙ
@Sharief123: it is good that you have quoted comment by Faizhaider. If he chooses he may reply. But can you please explain your contradiction regarding use of FB, YT, etc as references?--14.142.206.26 (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations and Controversies

[edit]
In 2020, after his alleged comparison of Azadari with Tarawih during a lecture, Indian daily and weekly Urdu newspapers Sahafat and Nauroz published articles critical to him. Indian daily and Urdu newspaper Sahafat and Hindi newspaper Bhumitra again criticised his May 29, 2020 Friday sermon, for targeting Indian Shia leadership.
  1. This should be removed Because these are all allegations, if the scholars are talking about this issue, then why is it kept on the article?

-Sharief123ᗙ

We need to analyse the full section and not only smaller part of it.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full analysis: Following is the full analysis of the section, please provide your feedback--Fztcs 14:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part-1 , "In a 2012 report by, he has been described as pro-Iran and to be financially supported by Iran. Alex Vatanka writes in an article titled "The Guardian of Pakistan's Shia" published by Hudson Institute, a strategic think-tank based in Washington. It says:..."', is supported by ref -

  1. Vatanka, Alex. "The Guardian of Pakistan's Shia - by Alex Vatanka". www.hudson.org. Archived from the original on 27 June 2017. Retrieved 13 April 2017..
Editor opinions:
www.hudson.org is RS; so, there should be no issue with this part.--Fztcs 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This part is okay as per analysis.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part-2 , "In 2019, an article in The News described him of having "uniquely Iran-centered career". As recent as January 2020, he has been described as "a major supporter of Iran’s theocracy" by Foreign Policy, an American news publication.", is supported by refs -

  1. "Shia Islam in colonial India and Pakistan | Dialogue | thenews.com.pk". www.thenews.com.pk. Archived from the original on 12 July 2020. Retrieved 2020-05-13. &
  2. Weinstein, Adam. "South Asia's Shiites Are Eschewing Sectarianism". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 14 March 2020. Retrieved 2020-05-13..
Editor opinions:
as thenews.com.pk is newspaper, hence, RS, also, "... newspapers are generally a lot more reliable..." (as expressed by another editor Vice regent[3]); foreignpolicy.com is RS too; so, there should be no issue with this part.--Fztcs 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This part is okay as per analysis.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part-3 , "In 2013, Mohammadi Masjid stopped Naqvi’s sermons after there was scuffle occurred when Police prevented Naqvi's security from entering the mosque, sparking mass protests outside the mosque. Allegedly his security guard was carrying unlicensed weapon. Police accused students of Naqvi, for creating the chaos and roughing up the cameraman, the varsity condemned the irresponsible behavior of the police. Subsequently, Naqvi was banned by Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif from lecturing at Mohammadi Masjid in Lahore.", is supported by refs -

  1. "Chaos at Majlis, Cops held Responsible". Archived from the original on 5 January 2015. Retrieved 5 January 2015., CM Sharif Bans Shia Scholar Syed Jawad Naqvi Archived 26 October 2014 at the Wayback Machine,
  2. "Punjab CM Shahbaz bans Shia scholar Syed Jawad Naqvi". Archived from the original on 5 January 2015. Retrieved 5 January 2015. &
  3. Qian, Adrian Wendy. "Politics of Shi'i Identity in South Asia: Syed Jawad Naqvi's Concept of Wilayat-i Fiqh". Archived from the original on 4 December 2017. Retrieved 28 January 2018. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help).
Editor opinions:
pakistantoday.com.pk is newspaper, hence, RS, also, "... newspapers are generally a lot more reliable..." (as expressed by another editor Vice regent[4]); not sure about pkmuzik.com; www.academia.edu is RS too; so, there should be no issue with this part.--Fztcs 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This part is okay as per analysis.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part-4 , "In 2020, after his alleged comparison of Azadari with Tarawih during a lecture, Indian daily and weekly Urdu newspapers Sahafat and Nauroz published articles critical to him.", is supported by refs -

  1. "'Nauroz' Urdu Weekly, Published From Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India" (weekly). nauroz.in (in Urdu). Lucknow: Nauroz International News Network. 1 May 2020. Archived from the original on 30 June 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.,
  2. Abbas, Aman (20 May 2020). "'Sahafat' Urdu Daily, Published From Mumbai, Maharashtra, India" (daily). www.sahafat.com/mumbai (in Urdu). No. 111. Lucknow: Daily Sahafat. Archived from the original on 15 June 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020. &
  3. "'Sahafat' Urdu Daily, Published From Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India" (daily). www.sahafat.com/lucknow (in Urdu). No. 113. Lucknow: Sahafat Daily. 11 May 2020. Archived from the original on 15 June 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020..
Editor opinions:
both nauroz.in & sahafat.com are newspapers, hence, RS, also, "... newspapers are generally a lot more reliable..." (as expressed by another editor Vice regent[5]); so, there should be no issue with this part.--Fztcs 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This part is okay as per analysis.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part-5 , "Indian daily and Urdu newspaper Sahafat and Hindi newspaper Bhumitra again criticised his May 29, 2020 Friday sermon, for targeting Indian Shia leadership.", is supported by refs -

  1. "Hindustan mai Shia Faroshi | Ustad e Mohtaram Syed Jawad Naqvi | 29-5-2020". Haqeeqat News (in Urdu). 16 June 2020. Archived from the original on 23 June 2020. Retrieved 23 June 2020.,
  2. Abbas, Aman (31 May 2020). "بوکھلاے جواد نقوی نےلگایا ہندستانی شیعہ لیڈران پر 'ملّت فروشی' کا الزام". www.sahafat.com/mumbai (in Urdu). No. 133. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India: Daily Sahafat. p. 1. Archived from the original on 3 July 2020. Retrieved 23 June 2020. &
  3. Abbas, Aman (1 June 2020). "बौखलाए जव्वाद नकवी ने लगाया हिन्दुस्तानी शिया लीडरान पर 'मिल्लत फरोशी' का इलज़ाम" (daily) (in Hindi). No. Year 16 # 300. Lucknow: dainikbhumitra.com. p. 1. Archived from the original on 30 June 2020. Retrieved 12 July 2020..
Editor opinions:
both dainikbhumitra.com & sahafat.com are newspapers, hence, RS, also, "... newspapers are generally a lot more reliable..." (as expressed by another editor Vice regent[6]); so, there should be no issue with this part.--Fztcs 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This part is okay as per analysis.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part-6 , "In July 2020 Jawad Naqvi criticised Imamia Students Organisation for not being the pride of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist which sparked a reaction and a resolution by Imamia Students Organization against him.", provides no reference..

Editor opinions:
as there is not ref provided, it should be removed unless RS are added.--Fztcs 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be removed.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part-6 , "Views on Women's role", is supported by ref -

  1. Daur, Naya (2019-04-10). "Religious Scholar Jawad Naqvi Terms Aurat March Organisers 'Most Evil Of All Women'". Naya Daur. Archived from the original on 25 June 2020. Retrieved 2020-05-27.
Editor opinions:
nayadaur.tv is newsmedia, hence, RS, also, "... newspapers are generally a lot more reliable..." (as expressed by another editor Vice regent[7]); so, there should be no issue with this part.--Fztcs 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This part is okay as per analysis.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works

[edit]

<TBD>

[edit]
Naqvi, after his alleged comparison of Majlis with Tarawih during a lecture in 2020,
These videos are from yt which are not neutral. I have mentioned many reasons above. This should be removed immediately.

-Sharief123ᗙ

I think the EL section can have the YT links as they are not being used for citations or references or as notes.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, with ip-editor, as the YT links are in External-Links section and are not being used as sources to support any text in the article there should be no issue with retaining them as such.--Fztcs 15:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analyze the current state of article and discuss it line by line.

[edit]

Hi all, I have added some references. Now, analyze the current state of article and discuss it line by line. If there is anything odd or doubt you can discuss with all esteemed editors. If it is suitable, then right. If not then discuss why, what is wrong or what is needed. If you think I made mistakes then say. I'm ready to discuss with full enthusiasm. Thank you! Sharief123 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharief123: I took a look at your edits, and you gutted the article. The sources you cited appear to be primary sources. As a result, I have reverted the page to before your changes. You've made bold changes, and you were reverted. You now must discuss the changes—and it's probably easier for you to go in small chunks than try to overhaul the entire article in one step. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done as per "C.Fred", who have reverted the article to previous state, which we had been discussing line-by-line.--Fztcs 01:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chit-chat-1

[edit]
C.Fred, Faizhaider and Sharief123: half of the text written in Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Allegations_and_controversies is cited to this this blog, which doesn't appear to be a reliable source at all. WP:BLP says 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. Can we all agree to remove this text first, and then reach consensus about its inclusion later? VR talk 12:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: thanks for your input. While we "analyze the current state of article and discuss it line by line" based on the curent consensus approach for dealing the situation, Can you please list out all the references on the article, and categorize their suitability of usage on BLP? Thanks again.--Fztcs 17:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: as per Faizhaider's request, can you please list out all the references of this article, and categorize them if they are suitable for usage on BLP? That will be of great help. TY!--14.142.206.26 (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, @Vice regent: this sentence also should be removed immediately :-
In 2020, after his alleged comparison of Azadari with Tarawih during a lecture, Indian daily and weekly Urdu newspapers Sahafat and Nauroz published articles critical to him. Indian daily and Urdu newspaper Sahafat and Hindi newspaper Bhumitra again criticised his May 29, 2020 Friday sermon, for targeting Indian Shia leadership.
Naqvi, after his alleged comparison of Majlis with Tarawih during a lecture in 2020,
These are the reference added by Faizhaider which are not neutral and are contravened, blaming and abusing with awrong name(These are in Urdu language). This should be removed. Previously, I said about this matter to Darkwind also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharief123 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharief123: How are these YouTube videos reliable sources? It's much preferable to go with newspaper publications than these videos. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred:, I have briefly replied same comment by Sharief123 previously, which I'll repeat again,
We'll come to the section Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Allegations_and_controversies while we are doing line-by-line analysis with content of the article but to give one liner reply here,
I have worded "In 2020,...leadership" to best of my capability and provided the newspaper links as citaions. If it can be worded better we'll see while the anaysis/discussion.
The YT links being questioned, are not being used as references but have been listed in 'External links' section.
If we start moving on the sections, we'll soon reach to "Allegations_and_controversies" section and will be able to do it's ceanup too.--Fztcs 17:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are not moving anywhere :( There is no constructive involvement from other editors who are party to the dispute. They are not interested in analysis of the article but only their POV-push and gutting of the article in favor of their point of view.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need for analysis whole article. It is request to @Faizhaider:, ip editor and other editors to analyze the current state of 'Allegations and Controversies' section only and discuss it line by line because all edit war, Credulously and Disagreement are on " Allegations and Controversies " section only then why to analyze whole article? It take less time as compared to whole. So, It will be better to discuss Allegations and Controversies only. I would like to invite Darkwind and C.Fred to give opinion on my suggestion and discuss.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharief123 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharief123: (cc:Darkwind & C.Fred), I have already demonstrated in Chronology of events that the edit-war has been spread across whole article, from usage of honorifics, titles, qualifying words to his qualification & degrees and yes 'Allegations and Controversies' section too, to this other editors too agreed. So, it is prudent enough to analyze the whole article and to cleanup the article one for all.--Fztcs 09:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharief123: As of now current Reference number one from the lead i.e. of Zahir Ebrahim's "The Rise of Revolutionary Islam in Pakistan" is shared in Allegations and controversies too. Likewise editors tend to use same ref in multiple sections so discussing all sections will be benefiting. If you do not participate others likely to take it as your silent acceptance of what they are discussing. Not discussing all sections is less likely to benefit you in long run In My Honest Opinion. Any ways User:Vice regent is likely to remove Zahir Ebrahim's "The Rise of Revolutionary Islam in Pakistan". So if any one has any other opinion about the removal then discuss at least discussion will move on that topic .Bookku (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku: Thank-you very-much for your input, this is what even I too have been trying to say. In given circumstances "top-to-down line-by-line" analysis of the article is best approach. This approach will avoid any selective targeting and will also avoid any unintentional leftover of non-consensus piece of information. Sharief123 as you see the consensus is to follow "top-to-down line-by-line" analysis of the article, so please let us go back to it without wasting any time further.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faizhaider and 14.142.206.26 I didn't get a chance to look at all the references, but most seems to be newspapers and newspapers are generally a lot more reliable than blogs. Since this BLP, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove the material from the blog. We can still discuss it and decide to add it back later if we reach consensus.VR talk 12:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Thumbs up icon! Although I don't like this jumping around the article. As I prefer, "top-to-down line-by-line" approach. But for now I'm okay with the removal, especially if it helps us to go back to line-by-line approach. And thanks for, "... newspapers are generally a lot more reliable...", that will help us to move ahead with the analysis. Faizhaider, Bookku, Sharief123, and others interested editors, let us please go back to "top-to-down line-by-line" analysis of the article.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent:, now that you have removed the content, I think I'll move ahead with it to avoid any new controversy. May be this removal will placate appetite of some editors who were asking for prioritizing 'Allegations and controversies' section review. Now, we must return back to "top-to-down line-by-line" approach as suggested by IP editor above. I have expanded my analysis above and again invite everyone including, you, Sharief123, Bookku & 14.142.206.26 to be part of the analysis or as user Bookku mentioned "If you do not participate others likely to take it as your silent acceptance of what they are discussing.". Thanks.--Fztcs 05:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should move ahead with the analysis and cleanup.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why so hasty? I think Faizhaider and ip editor just wants to remove lot of information.
They are also trying to divert the intention and avoid the topic Allegations and Controversies which is mainpoint of edit war.
I deduce by above discussion that thay deliberately lengthened the debate.Now, as you wish: let discuss.....
as we see "Allama Syed Jawad Naqvi is Pakistani twelver Shia cleric, religious leader and Qur'anic interpreter" there is no doubt. One who has Suspicion on these lines that means who didn't know him clearly . Now, As you want references, I will provide you.
This is the introduction of Allama Syed Jawad Naqvi during lecture at University of Central Punjab Lahore (UCP) and one among law student introduced Allama Syed Jawad Naqvi to other students in presence of Mr.Jawad Naqvi [1]. This is the vedio uploaded by UCP law Society on fb, yt and their website also. In this vedio he say Allama Syed Jawad Naqvi is a Pakistani Twelver Shia cleric, religious leader and Quran interpreter.
This is the interview of Allama Jawad uploaded by his official website islamimarkaz in which he all about his career, education etc.[2]
"He has three PhD in philosophy, sociology and Fiqh. He has studied and taught Islam in Iran for more than 30 years. His most prominent teacher was Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi-Amoli. Naqvi is the Chancellor of Jamia Urwa-tul-Wusqa and Jamia Jaffria, Shia Islamic seminaries in Lahore and Gujranwala respectively. He is also the principal of Jamia Ummul Kitaab in Lahore, head of Deen-ul-Qayyim Online Islamic school and Siraat Education School System".So this ref is better for proven.
Previously I have mentioned regarding Religious Leader and Qur'anic interpreter, his official chennels like"'Tafseer e Quran"'"Qur'anic interpreter". www.youtube.com.And "'Hikmat e Ali as"'"Qur'an translation". www.youtube.com. in which he translates the Qur'an. In his official website "'islamimarkaz"' there are many vedio of religious leader and many more. "YouTube references are reliable if it is official and are used to his own Wikipedia Article not others" mention it.
These all references are sufficient and are proven. Just don't stop at lead.
Now, Move onwards to "Allegations and Controversies"
Sharief123ᗙ

-Sharief123ᗙ

References

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/lsucp/videos/390041071847971/
  2. ^ https://www.facebook.com/lsucp/videos/390041071847971/

Chit-chat-2

[edit]
In 2020, after his alleged comparison of Azadari with Tarawih during a lecture, Indian daily and weekly Urdu newspapers Sahafat and Nauroz published articles critical to him. Indian daily and Urdu newspaper Sahafat and Hindi newspaper Bhumitra again criticised his May 29, 2020 Friday sermon, for targeting Indian Shia leadership.
Naqvi, after his alleged comparison of Majlis with Tarawih during a lecture in 2020,

These references should be removed immediately because these are not neutral and above I have mentioned many reasons. So, It should be removed, if not removed then I will remove this as per Neutral point of view.

@Sharief123: You are the only one in haste here. In haste of gutting the article as per your POV. You use FB, YT, etc. when it suites your narrative and gut them when it doesn't. And what mess of a comment you have made (Facepalm Facepalm ), breaking all the threads and disrupting the order & indentation. Please fix your comment to make it readable & coherent.--Fztcs 14:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizhaider: it is readable, if you can read. First of all, I made it very clear that you have added useless content that will be removed soon. It is clear from your anxiety and restlessness that you are trying to own this article and want to oppose it in your own way which is not acceptable. What I wrote above clearly shows that what you want to do and what you don't want to believe is clearly written. Aren't you over-reacting? Why you are trying to avoid my sentences? If you are not answerable to my question then why you realizing the Fumishness of your contributions (Facepalm Facepalm ). I invite Darkwind, C.Fred, EdJohnston, Vice regent to emphasize what I am saying and what I have listed above and content added by Faizhaider which are not neutral(blaming, contravened and allegations) should be removed otherwise I will remove them. Sharief123ᗙ
@Sharief123: Would it be possible for you to separate your argument section wise since Allegations and controversies and External links are separate sections. It will be easier for other users to discuss.
Bookku (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku:: yeap, I have already mentioned above very clearly.

.

@Sharief123: Thanks. I would like to understand your point of neutrality a little better. For example say a suppose a notable person SJN criticizes 'the some thing' in his book without being neutral. So Wikipedia article on 'the some thing' should include criticism of 'the some thing' by 'SJN' or not?
Would like to understand your view.
Bookku (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharief123: please, don't make changes to the article before consensus is reached. You have already been warned by Darkwind, EdJohnston & C.Fred on your talk page and on ANI/EW.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred:, as of now article has 18 refs and none of them are YouTube videos, hopefully we can keep it like that. The YouTube videos, are listed in External links section only.--Fztcs 19:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

[edit]

Could someone see about translating the Book titles in the Works section. Those that speak English (this is the en. Wikipedia) will have no idea what the markings mean. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Are there any reliable sources that provide some clarity on his name? I've had editors come to my user talk indicating that Syed is a surname or family name, rather than a title. If an editor is familiar enough with this to provide clarity, I'd appreciate this. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me state that "Sayyid" in Arabic is a person belonging to the family of the Holy Prophet or descendants of PROPHET. There is also types among these Sayyids such as Musawi , Rizvi , Naqvi and Taqwi. Syed Jawad Naqvi is "Naqvi" sadaat(sadaat means Syed; Superior cast in Arabic sub-continent). "Allama" is title ans and "Syed" is family name or surname. Even his official website contains him with title "Allama" and without title with "Syed" http://islamimarkaz.com/. There is also many examples for better understanding.
Agha Syed Hamid Ali Shah Moosavi where "Agha" is title and "Syed" the part of the name. Allama Syed Shehanshah Hussain Naqvi where "Allama" is title and "Syed" is the part of the name. moulana Syed Ali Raza Rizvi where "Moulana" is title and "Syed" is part of the name. In the case of Allama Syed Jawad Naqvi, "Allama" is title and "Syed" is part of the name or cast. Sharief123 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: There is no response from you. You should edit the name of article as it was befour. Sharief123 (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharief123: It's not clear looking at the about page that islamimarkz.com is an official website. Nor have you provided clarity about the naming situation. Further, while I know that Korea, China, and Japan use a last-first naming style, I wasn't aware that it was used in Pakistan as well.
It would really help if we knew his father's name. Based on your description, the name should fit the pattern of Syed ________ Naqvi, with the middle portion being the father's given name. —C.Fred (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 PhD's?

[edit]

Writing that he has 3 PhD's is a balatant lie. He was never awarded a PhD degree, neither has he published articles in academic journals. For more information on PhD degrees, please have a look at this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy

If his madrassa Jamia Urwa tul Wusqa claims that he has a PhD degree, it isn't a degree awarding institution recognized by HEC. Also your personal verification can't be a source on Wikipedia. You need to provide verifiable information, like his online thesis and the name of the university that awarded him those PhD's. And his scholarly publications, published in internationally recognized journals, if he has any. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance with Zahid ur Rashidi

[edit]

On 17th of November, 2019, Syed Jawad Naqvi invited Zahid ur Rashidi, a famous Takfiri cleric to his madrassah and asked him to lead prayer. Zahid ur Rashidi is known for declaring all Twelver Shias as apostates. This has reminded shias of a similar character, Mazhar Ali Azhar of Majlis-i-Ahrar, who made alliance with Hussain Ahmad Madani against Shias during the Madhe Sahaba Agitation of Lucknow in 1930's. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid ur Rashidi says:
ایک موقع پر بعض دوستوں نے یہ سوال کیا ہے کہ ہمارے والدمحترم امام اہل سنت حضرت مولانا محمد سرفرازخان صفدرؒ کا موقف اور طرزعمل کیا تھا؟ خصوصاً اس پس منظر میں کہ انہوں نے اثناء عشری اہل تشیع کی تکفیر پر’ ’ارشاد الشیعہ‘‘ کے نام سے کتاب بھی لکھی ہے، میں نے گزارش کی کہ انہوں نے ’’ارشادالشیعہ‘‘ تصنیف فرمائی اور اس میں انہوں نے جو موقف اختیار کیا ہے وہ صرف ان کا موقف نہیں بلکہ یہ تو اہل سنت کا موقف ہے اور خود ہمارا موقف بھی اثنا عشری اہل تشیع کی حد تک یہی ہے۔
Link http://zahidrashdi.org/129

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was invited to Wahdat Conference, 17 November 2019 to lead prayer. He lead only the Zuhr prayer. https://www.wahdat.org/playlists/wahdat-conference-2019?video=125 Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On role of Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar in Madhe Sahaba Agitation, Justice Munir writes in his report:
“How they attempted to defeat the Muslim League with Islam as their weapon will be apparent from some utterances of Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, the Ahrar leader, to whom is ascribed the couplet in which the Quaid-i-Azam was called kafir-i-azam. This gentleman is a Shia, but madh-i-sahaba with him is dearer than life, and during the days of Shia-Sunni riots in Lucknow both he and his son adopted this slogan which rouses the fire of every Shia and went from Lahore to Lucknow to fan the Shia-Sunni fire. Speaking outside Bhati Gate at a public meeting of the Ahrar, he said that he had, for the preceding two or three months, been asking the Muslim League whether the names of sahaba-i-karam would be revered in Pakistan, but had received no reply. He alleged that in the Congress-governed Provinces where Government was still with the British and the League had no power, the Leaguers were not permitting the sahaba to be named with reverence and asked whether, if power passed to the League; the state of affairs would be the same as in Lucknow and other Provinces where Muslims were in a majority and madh-i- sahaba would be an offence. Proceeding, he inquired if words of praise for Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Usman could not be uttered in Lucknow and Mahmudabad, what would be the condition in League's Pakistan and what interest the Musalmans could have in such Pakistan (vide 'Shahbaz' of 20th November 1945)? In its issue of 2nd November 1945, the 'Nawa-i-Waqt' published a letter written by this very gentleman to another Ahrar leader. As the genuineness of this letter was questioned, we examined Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar about it. He says that he does not definitely remember having written it but since this letter was published in one of the prominent papers of Lahore and was not contradicted by him, we have no hesitation in holding that the Maulana did write this letter. It is impossible that the Maulana, a renowned leader as he was in those days, should not have been aware of the publication of this letter, and, if he failed to contradict it, the only inference can be that the 'Nawa-i-Waqt' was in possession of the original letter, the authorship of which, in case the matter came to proof, could have conclusively been proved. The subject-matter of this letter is again madh-i- sahaba and we may repeat that the Maulana himself is a Shia. In this letter the Maulana says that the weapon of madh-i-sahaba could effectively be used against the League and that both the League and the Government will have to surrender over this issue whatever might, be the result of the elections. This conduct of the Maulana shows quite clearly how the Ahrar and other parties can conveniently exploit religion for their political ends. In this connection we may also mention a similar effort made by the Muslim League itself in 1946 to have pirs and masha'ikh, who command considerable followings, on its side in the struggle for the establishment of Pakistan.”
Ref:Justice Munir, "Report of the court inquiry constituted under Punjab act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab disturbances of 1953", pp. 254-255, (1954). Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2023

[edit]

Remove Allama in the beginning to keep it natural. Change Ayatollah Misbah to Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi (correct reference) and also mention Hassan Hassanzadeh Amoli in teachers as well. Wikiskrn (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, reasonable request. @Paper9oll, attempts to build consensus for such minor changes would be a waste of editors' time. — kashmīrī TALK 11:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hussaini azadar

[edit]

i need this book.plz pdf kr dy 223.123.1.146 (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syed is part of name

[edit]

Syed is the part of name not title..... DrMosaviSyed (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If any wants to edit the article, kindly discuss here on article’s talk page... Thank you DrMosaviSyed (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred Previously you seem to have looked into the naming of the article. Is the issue sorted out with consensus or still pending for further discussion? -- Bookku (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku At last look, Syed—or in the current transliteration, Sayed—is part of his name. —C.Fred (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EggRoll97 moved Syed Jawad Naqvi to Jawad Naqvi without discussing in talk page. Removeing the "Syed". @C.Fred @Bookku @DrMosaviSyed @Liz 27.63.26.200 (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ 27.63.26.200 I would prefer to with C.Fred's word as AGF since they too were equally concerned about title and looked into the issue. Still once challenged one is supposed to provide supporting reliable references and references provide better stability to the articles. Thanks Bookku (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ 27.63.26.200 The move is contested, and in accordance with WP:RMUM, it needs to be proposed as a requested move prior to being moved again. The last stable title (before any moves were performed by DrMosaviSyed) would be Jawad Naqvi. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrMosaviSyed As you say it seems likely that 'Syed is part of name not title. By now you would be aware that Wikipedia usually expects references for claims specially in the articles where users / editors have difference of opinions.
  • English Wikipedia gives preference to name spellings used in reliable English language sources if not then reliable sources from other languages and their best possible transliteration is considered, to best of my knowledge. Providing references and analogy will help you achieve consensus / agreement on the talk page. After the discussion you can request admins further move rather than inadvertently ending up in a block again.
You can request more help at WP:Teahouse I hope this tip helps you. Wish you happy editing when you join back. Bookku (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

[edit]
2409:4050:2D39:75C3:0:0:AF4A:3F08 (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His dob is not correct plz change it ..it's 1962

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits contrary to previous discussions/consensus

[edit]

There have been multiple edits on the article contrary to previous lengthy discussions/consensus. Even sections/content which were created in result of these discussions like 'controversy' & 'external links' have been totally removed or changed beyond recognition. Even maintenance tags have been removed. As of now I'm trying to restore the sections/material which were added after lengthy previous discussions. If any meaningful info is removed during these edits I'll try to add them back at the end. Please be patient. --Fztcs 06:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can you make sure not to include the lengthy list of links to YouTube videos? The listing breaches WP:EL, WP:LINKFARM and especially WP:BLPEL. Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 11:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you please point me to the section that contains the consensus you mentioned? Thx. — kashmīrī TALK 11:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can refer to previous discussions (e.g., 20200 ones) for the details. Anyway, you have gone for an extensive edit of the article since your comments, and I mostly have no issues with them apart from the removal of the list of links listed as external; I would've preferred them to be there in the article (may be in some other way), but as it goes, it goes. Happy editing.--Fztcs 12:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024

[edit]

The name is Syed jawad naqavi please correct this Syed Mustafa Mahdi Naqvi (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Issue.

[edit]

@Adakiko, The subsection "On women's roles" only highlights a single, controversial statement about the Aurat March, which doesn't accurately represent Jawad Naqvi's broader views on women's roles in Islam. Given that he has published comprehensive works on the subject[8][9], limiting the content to one critical remark about a specific movement is gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:Balance. And futhermore, the source[10] of the subsection does not seem to be a reliable and authoritative one. 182.183.54.110 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jawad_Naqvi&oldid=1257588963"