Talk:Succession to the 52nd Dai al-Mutlaq/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

What is the use of this page

There is no need for creating wiki articles on current issues related to some religion. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.199.130 (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

nonsense there as valid and interesting as on any other subject.Just make sure that you have sufficient neutral sources, as NPOV is situations liek this can be hard go accomplish. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

user:anupmehra changes I have made is the proof that user:Summichum is biased. as you can see he quoted only his POV from the reference he himself has given. which I have added in full. you can also refer his link .Rukn950 (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have also removed user's own adjective (weasal words) cleverly inserted to divert the issue to his own POV. please refer history.Rukn950 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:- An another article on my "to-do" list. Not sure, it should exists or not. However there are multiple reliable sources on this subject that easily satisfies WP:GNG criteria. It'd be a tough job maintaining neutrality! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ommiting the established facts in favour of POV is not acceptable according to wikipedia policy.Rukn950 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ruqn please dont disrupt correct formatting and dont indulge in irrelevant tag flooding

User:Anupmehra ,User:rukn is flooding tags and has undone by sincere formatting attempts. What to do in this case , you can see the diffs Summichum (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I not done any edit without reliable references.there were edits that stated half truth and omitted the other half of the matter from same references cited.

The tags are necessary to maintain NPOV,till the article is done on wiki standards. infact this article is fork of Dawoodi bohra and Mufaddal saifuddin and as principal it shoud not exist.Rukn950 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Summichum: I see, the article is now tagged with multiple maintenance tags. I've not analyzed the content of the articles and respective sources yet to determine whether it does really warrant these tags or not. These tags can be removed addressing those particular issues what these tags stand for, if there's nothing such issue, then consider talking/discussing with tagging editor Rukn950. If talk could not be proceed due to some differences, then request a WP:Third opinion on this issue. I'm little busy these days around, however, working on Mohammed Burhanuddin article, whenever online. Once finished with Burhanuddin article, I'll be onto this article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to maintain NPOV. I am available for discussion.Rukn950 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary source and forums

Fatemidawat.com is Primary source which solesly exist as pomotion of khuzaima qutbuddin and managed by his camp. has no readership, lot less than badremuneer. dawood bohra forum is not acceptable as forums cannot be cited. similarly youtube. so I have removed the sources which are against the wikipedia guidelines. Please discuss if anyone has any objection to my edit.Rukn950 (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tags

Please do not remove tags before discussion and consent from the concerned editor. In this case Anupmehra, DGG, ‎Markdrows and ‎Md iet Rukn950 (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Custody battle

The innocent children were kidnapped by daughters of khuzaima qutbuddin against the permission of their fathers, as per law this is a crime

Parental Kidnapping occurs when one parent deprives the other of his or her legal right to custody or visitation by illegally taking the child out of the jurisdiction. It is outlawed by the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A [Supp. 1993])

Rukn950 (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC) It is sad that innocent children were dragged into this controversy.

azad suplimentary

This citation as being referenced in the article is primary source. it is a self published supplementary. I request my fellow editors to look into this matter.Referene No 16 and No 17 in the article:

<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf | title=A Manifesto on behalf of the Bohra Community | publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad | first1=Ismail K. | last1=Poonawala | first2=Abbas H. | last2=Hamdani | date=March 2014 | accessdate=11 April 2014 | pages=6–7 | format=PDF}}</ref> This reference does not comply with wikipedia source policy.Rukn950 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• • It is a primary source of progressive faction stating their views , its just their own demands and not fact\truth added for sake of completeness.- not signed( may be from Sumchum)

• Primary source that too of a minority group making propaganda, not having any public acceptance, mouthpiece of a breakaway group publishing just their demand of their will, not fact/truth even cannot be taken as good faith edit. In any case ,how can a demand charter of independent faction who declared himself out for more than 30 years can be a part of article related with present DB succession. Mr. Sumchum is restoring/adding the material as per his will. If any body wants to put some another idea, may discuss.--Md iet (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Material from source [1] described as: 'It is a primary source of progressive faction stating their views , its just their own demands and not fact\truth added for sake of completeness' added, when removed; reinstated complaining edit war is something strange. Material is demands of a independent breakaway group, separated more then 30 years before; how can it be relevant to present succession and require for 'sake of completion'.--Md iet (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Demands of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohras in wake of succession controversy

Lots of peacock terms are added in this sections. and undue weightage is given to progressive dawoodi bohra.Reference given are also self publish primary source, no independent third party reference are given except in few places where the matter is blown out of proportion of prove user summichum's POV .Rukn950 (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As India is secular country no one can, and has stopped Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, to form their own group along with their believers, elect their own Nizam and follow their own doctrines. Rukn950 (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The absurd demand of progressive dawoodi bohra has no real meaning. it is like Scientology cult advising Pope the tenants of religion.This group is taking advantage of the controversy giving sugarcoated pills,misleading the readers. And I feel summichum is promoting their cause.Rukn950 (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Nevertheless it is related to controversy and should be reported as per WP:NPOVVIEW IT IS A primary source and is verifiable unlike sloppy badre munir which is a unverifiable self published work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no way anyone can reason with user:summichum. he will maintain his POV and revert all others good faith edits.Rukn950 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Primary source that too of a minority group making propaganda, not having any public acceptance, mouthpiece of a breakaway group publishing just their demand of their will, not fact/truth even cannot be taken as good faith edit. In any case ,how can a demand charter of independent faction who declared himself out for more than 30 years can be a part of article related with present DB succession. Mr. Sumchum is restoring/adding the material as per his will. If any body wants to put some another idea, may discuss.--Md iet (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If the source <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf | title=A Manifesto on behalf of the Bohra Community | publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad | first1=Ismail K. | last1=Poonawala | first2=Abbas H. | last2=Hamdani | date=March 2014 | accessdate=11 April 2014 | pages=6–7 | format=PDF}}</ref> is acceptable here, and Mr. Sumchum claims that "IT IS A primary source and is verifiable unlike sloppy badre munir which is a unverifiable self published work " Let me give details of "Badre Muneer" magazine:

1. Badre Muneer is independent publication of Dawoodi Bohra and not "another self published source of one of the claimants". This magazine has vide circulation all over the countries where Dawoodi Bohra lives and act as mouthpiece for Dawoodi Bohra;

Details: The Internationally Acclaimed Monthly Magazine of The Dawoodi Bohra Community BADRE MUNEER, Regn. no. RAJKOT/378/2012/14, Neelam Publications, 2nd Floor, Nagindas Chambers, Dhebar Road, RAJKOT - 360 001 (INDIA). Phone : +91-281-2226517 / 2235056 Fax : +91-281-2223944 Mobile : +91 93757 45252 Follow them from wherever you are: On Web: www.badremuneer.in On Facebook: www.facebook.com/badremuneer On Twitter: www.twitter.com/badremuneer On Buzz: www.google.com/profiles/badremuneer On Grouply: http://badremuneer.grouply.com On Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profileuid=14396410947135118255 the-magazine-issue-with-the-highest-number-of-pages This is not a primary source of claimaint, but a private publication, you can follow from wherever you are on all public network like facebook, google, orkut etc. on web ID given above. How come this secondary source become sloppy. We agree that this magazine is specifically meant for Dawoodi Bohra, but it has world vide circulation amongst Bohra and material available in it is treated as news material worldvide for Bohra , how it can be non encyclopedic in the matter of Dawoodi Bohra.

If publication like www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad56.pdf, publisher=Dawoodi Bohra Welfare Society | work=Azad (which are not at all as per wiki std.) are sustained, 'Badre Muneer' are 100 times genuine as a majority news service of DB. --Md iet (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Tag Flooding by Rukn

User:Anupmehra User rukn has flooded this page with many irrelevant tags. Do verify each source is third party neutral NPOV source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That is unfair allegation of summichum. I have tagged that is relevent. This issue is highly volatile and we have to strive to achieve NPOV. I am preventing this article to become a personal blog. I request summichum not to remove tag before proper discussion. Rukn950 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

--Md iet (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)== Third party non aligned views on controversy are Important as per WP:NPOVIEW ==

Some users are trying to remove the section on views of respectable third parties , please discuss here.

They cant be removed as per WP:NPOVIEW and we are not stating it as fact but just quoting it without attesting to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• As per WP:BLPFIGHTonly allows material which is 'relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced'. In the present case it is relevant and reliably sourced, but not at all properly weighted. The statement is just issued in isolation. The article topic is mainly on politics, “The Mad Hatter’s ball begins..”. The author discussing Kalmadi and Pawan Bansal, Reddy, Tejpal, Chavan, Sinde of their scandals, suddenly started talking of a prestigious religious community head, which is far away from any party politics and blatantly blames that:

‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ No background, no references, no justifications, just all direct, blatant, allegations with full confidence. Can you call it ‘properly weighted, never ever.

The article claim:

‘self declared’: What proof this Mr. Nandy have. We forget about earlier Nass before 2011, Mufaddal was not present in London Hospital, his brothers informed him of incident, this is well proven and well reported fact, nobody can dispute. How can it be self declared, definitely his brothers are middleman involved. is new Syedna? Trouble brews as half-brother stakes claim, |quote= in June 2011, the late Syedna had reportedly said to have suffered a stroke and had made the same proclamation of nass in front of his sons.

‘asked follower to..declare their allegance’...: Is he called the hundreds of thousand DB in Mumbai on the day of late Syedna demise( Mufaddal was away Colombo). Is he asked all the DB to chant ‘Moula Moula” to him in the street of Mumbai when he was on the bridge near Raudat Tahera, at time of last rituals. Indian Express[http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/who-is-new-syedna-trouble-brews-as-half-brother-stakes-claim/2/, quote= Tahera mausoleum after Syedna’s demise, lakhs of Dawoodi Bohras standing on the streets of Bhendi Bazaar screamed “Maula” giving a clear indication of who they have believed to be their 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq.”- Indian Express]

‘his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ : the claimaint himself says that anoinment was done in private and did not put any direct proof of incident. From where this Mr. Nandy got the proof and declared single headedly.. ‘had anointed’.Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.

The statement is not at all properly weighted and a just allegation, never never suitable for inclusion in BLP cases as per Wiki guidelines.

User: Summichum is trying to add the statement again again to force his POV. The statement is to be removed immediately. Hope the above is justified, any value addition is welcome, else the para will be deleted.--Md iet (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Md iet the quote is stated as a quote NOT a fact , a quote can be true or false , as the title suggests it just states the view of respected third parties. He himself is a famous journalist and knows how to get into the truth of the matters. You can consider his quote as a third party expert opinion. Moreover Mufaddal is clearly self declared as its proven from the medical records and video of ceremony that he was not able to speak and had significant mental deficits on account of severe stroke. Mufaddal took advantage of this stroke to declare himself as successor. He did not even consult the deputy of the dai , the Mazoon. Nor was the Mazoon present at the place. You can yourself add quotes of independent third party on the succession controversy, I tried to find more quotes in favour of Mufaddal on this issue but was unable to find. Please update the section if you find one.— Summichum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

Mr.Sumchum, a quote can be a blatant lie as proven above, but as per WP:BLPFIGHTit is to be properly weighted for inclusion in Wiki. Please don't try to find out quote in favour of Mufaddal, just restrain from doing edit war you are up to.--Md iet (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• • No you cant judge whether it is lie or not , now as the matter is in courts let the courts decide , his quote is important as he has never before quoted on religion , it has to be something important which is why he made that statement. Your personal opinions dont matter as you already have COI , hence biased whereas Pritish does not have a conflict of interest and he being a reputed journalist knows the difference between hearsay and statement of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If you 'can't judge it is lie or not' than there is ample possibility that it can be lie. How one can categorically declare that Mufaddal is ‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras' for a living person and that's why Wiki has made a precondition of 'properly weighted' to ensure that Wiki do not involve in the matter directly or indirectly. Hence inclusion of this blatant statement of any damn big person/source is not acceptable in Wiki, I have personally objected to Mr. Nandy on Twitter and expect explanation from him.--Md iet (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Non free material

There is some material in this article which breach copyright:

1. http://dawoodi-bohras.com/news/2045/52/A-Manifesto-on-behalf-of-the-Dawoodi-Bohra-Community/d,pdb_detail_article_comment/

2. http://scroll.in/article/as-bohra-succession-battle-heads-to-court-support-for-syednas-uncle-gathers-steam/?id=660414

I haven't checked the whole article but I suspect there are other areas that are either copy vio or excessive use of non free material in terms of the amount that is directly quoted. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed some of the copyrighted information, however the excessive quoting is still an issue in terms of excessive non-free use. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• thanks for the edit Flat Out , I also had this concern but due to the various NPOV policies it is better to just quote as writing in own words might introduce bias in the matters.

No, you can't just fill an article with quotes. Read and understand WP:QUOTE and WP:COPYVIO. Also, please sign your posts Flat Out let's discuss it 09:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Quote from pritish Nandi

I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Wikipedia, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally.

Similar edit was done by admin user:Mr. Stradivarius in article Mufaddal Saifuddin.Rukn950 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• No Rukn950 you changed before discussing here and above, anyways WP:BLPGOSSIP applies to BLP articles and this is not a BLP article , this article's main topic itself is succession controversy which requires that the views of third parties whether pro or against should be quoted if avaialible in reputed media outlets, remember we are not stating it as fact but as quote.Summichum (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

whether the article is about living person or not but the quote is hence it is violation. you reverted my edit without discussion. that has become your habitual consistency. I would request user:Qwertyus and user:Anupmehra to look into this matter and also about Azad suplimentary.Rukn950 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• please see WP:CRYBLP and WP:BLPFIGHT this policy clearly says that BLP policy does not apply to controversy related articles WP:BLPFIGHT, it has valid source and reference from a leading news paper User:Anupmehra and admins do see this violationSummichum (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • as discussed in length at [2], as per WP:BLPFIGHTonly allows material which is 'relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced'. In the present case it is relevant and reliably sourced, but not at all properly weighted. The statement is just issued in isolation. The article topic is mainly on politics, “The Mad Hatter’s ball begins..”. The author discussing Kalmadi and Pawan Bansal, Reddy, Tejpal, Chavan, Sinde of their scandals, suddenly started talking of a prestigious religious community head, which is far away from any party politics and blatantly blames that:

‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ No background, no references, no justifications, just all direct, blatant, allegations with full confidence. Can you call it ‘properly weighted, never ever.

The matter was deleted by admin user:Mr. Stradivarius in article Mufaddal Saifuddin(I've removed the sentence, as to me it seemed to be violating WP:BLPGOSSIP. On reading the article, the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect. This is not immediately obvious when quoted out of context in Wikipedia, and could make readers think that the claims were meant to be taken literally. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC),), and edit war complain [3]was negated by another admin on the same issue. Sumichum is reinstated the material on his will, admin to notice.--Md iet (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:SOURCES, 'material challenged or likely to be challenged[4],..whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.', also this inclusion is not at all justified.--Md iet (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In case there is no further comments on the above justification, we may proceed.--Md iet (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• • firstly you have quoted BLP policy please see WP:BLPFIGHT this policy clearly says that BLP policy does not apply to controversy related articles as this article itself describes the controversy from various reliable sources WP:BLPFIGHT, secondly the section title itself is opinion of various third parties on the issue hence the quote are not stated as fact but only as quote of noteworthy intellectual persons who are influential, Pritish Nandy is himself a seasoned journalist and he knows the rules of Journalism and hence it is more likely that he has researched and presented his opinion as a quote. So dont worry whether it is a fact or not it does not matter as we are just collecting opinions of influential people on the succession controversy. You yourself may add quotes of other influential partiesSummichum (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If anybody else is against removal of this not properly weighted statement where, 'the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect' as per one of the admin, may please put his view.--Md iet (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) As there is no other editor who is against removing this material, and

user:Mr. Stradivarius has already removed this from Mufaddal Saifuddin article on basis of ‘author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect', and

user:Kuru has already accepted [5] removal as no violation, hence

The statement is being removed. It may please not be added without further consensus, else would be treated as edit warring.--Md iet (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dont try to repeat the same arguments , the user stradivarus has not commented here that article is a different one, and this section itself says "statement of third parties " hence it cant be removed as per WP:BLPFIGHT this policy clearly says that BLP policy does not apply to controversy related articles as this article itself describes the controversy from various reliable sources WP:BLPFIGHT, secondly the section title itself is opinion of various third parties on the issue hence the quote are not stated as fact but only as quote of noteworthy intellectual persons who are influential, Pritish Nandy is himself a seasoned journalist and he knows the rules of Journalism and hence it is more likely that he has researched and presented his opinion as a quote. So dont worry whether it is a fact or not it does not matter as we are just collecting opinions of influential people on the succession controversy. You yourself may add quotes of other influential partiesSummichum (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Request user:Mr. Stradivarius & user:Kuru to intervene in the matter. Summichum is adamant in his behavior, and trying to reinstate material which is not ' properly weighted' ([[WP:BLPFIGHT]), because 'the author seems to be using a strident tone and exaggerating the facts for dramatic effect' and material is not 'verifiable'(WP:SOURCES).--Md iet (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to express support for removing the quote as WP:QUOTE says "where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Furthermore, this source does not present a neutral point-of-view because it almost certainly satirical. Also, Summicham says that but "BLP policy does not apply to controversy-related articles", but at the start of the section Where BLP does and does not apply, it says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia" (emphasis mine), and I think we can all agree the subjects of this controversy are very much alive and well (excluding the late Syedna, of course).

However, a palatable and preferable approach that could avoid undue weight would be to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and integrate it with the rest of the article, like what has been done with the note on the note on AM Ahmadi's support for Qutbuddin.

Also, could I be a pain and remind you to indent your replies? EdwardH (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• talk I agree with the solution offered by you in the second para WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV , and that was my intention too as pritish quote was written as a quote and not a fact, anyways I request you to integerate it as you did with Ahmadi, but note that Pritish is a reputed journalist who also has been editor of famous news papers in India and is not aligned to any of the conflicting parties and this should come out in the integrated article.Summichum (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Pritish Nandi

Violation WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose.

WP:Gossip

Removed the quoation as per the above mentioned violation Rukn950 (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

salaman khurshid content has no relation to succesion controversy

User:Mr. Stradivarius This article is about succession controversy and not about what foreign ministers of India offering condolence to Mufaddal, . From the reports Mufaddal had deceived his own people and staged a succession ceremony using the debilitated stroke ridden body of burhanuddin as a prop. While the people believed what was told to them , the fact is a succession deed was not pronounced although it was made to appear as if it was pronounced and people were made to believe that which was what reported in Media , untill his brother came up with evidences and videos which showed that succession did not take place. Hence you cannot say that a political foriegn minister accorded it. the user md_iet is having a COI and wants to add completely irrelevant details to loose the focus of the article. User:Anupmehra please look into this matter. Also he is accusing in COI board of "poking nose in others matters". Which is completely bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mr.Summichum, I am not claiming that 'a political foreign minister accorded it'. In the support Para , it is just mentioned the media report exactly quoted, without adding any original research. This is important as this statement of media is related with subject 'support'. This is same as news of Pritish Nandi or Ahmadi being quoted here. For keeping NPOV, this is important.--Md iet (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Regarding complain that 'he is accusing in COI board of "poking nose in others matters". ‘Which is completely bad faith.' Let me make further clear that Mr Summichum seems to be a learned person and it is not expected of him to quote about a community that “ fatimid bohras like dawoodi bohras are a minority group who have invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims” without giving any proof or inline citation of wiki reliable sources. This is direct allegation and this person seems to have extreme negative POV for the community as whole. This is not just an original research but clear cut violations of all the limits anyone can think off. When Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline, this fellow has crossed all the limits, harassing complete community, declared them a non Muslim and made allegation of inventing a new religion. This blatant interference without any proper basis cannot be defined less than ‘poking nose’ and it seems completely in good faith of community as well as of Wiki policies. As per WP:BLPFIGHT, More generally, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all.--Md iet (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Mr.User:Anupmehra, may please analyse Mr Summichum carefully. He doesn't seems to be a third party NPOV editor as he claims. He has clearly doubted about the succession of Ali. [6], which is core point related with origination of Shia community as whole. He seems to en cash this succession crisis, toward his goal of harassment of Shia community as whole, of which Bohra community is a part. Anyway thanks again for constructive modification suggested and being implemented by you as true third party editor for making Bohra articles to Wiki standards.--Md iet (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Please dont goto offtopic issues this is not a place of personal attacks and judging users intentions, what you always do is never engage in the topic of discussion but fill your replies with false allegations. Dont bring discussion of other articles here what I had quoted in that article which was published in reliable milligazzete article. Reg Salman then the topic is about succession controversy and condolence related topic are completely irrelevant as many people offered condolences on death of his father. And Mufaddal himself presented himself as the daee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: - Hello Summichum, I'll request you to not allege some person "COI affiliation" until you have got some solid evidence to prove your claim. It'd otherwise, be considered a personal attack. I'll make a humble request to Md iet too, to comment on the contents not on the contributor. If there's some evidence that suggests, disruptive editing from an editor, then it is a case to bring to administrator attention, at ANI or AIV. Coming back to point, whether some stuffs should be included or not into this article, would be better if resolved with discussing the editor in conflict, if it doesn't happen, let me know. I'd chose to open a RFC to invite comments from people regular to WikiProject India and WikiProject Islam. Whatever, consensus would be thereafter, should be acceptable by everyone. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

ThanksUser:Anupmehra for your Wiki friendly advice to coeditors. My first comment was on clarification about the content only. I also don't believe in making any personal allegations and always in favour of having humble relations with coeditor. Here is a unique different case of making false personal/community allegations, giving notices everywhere, making every stone get turned to stick to his POV and raising the case of COI again here out of the context, which I was suppose to answer and I was rather forced to comment on the contributor, hope Summichum, will take it supportingly, and other coeditor will excuse me.--Md iet (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Summichum I dont seem to understand, you gave too much weightage to passing statement of Pritish Nandy . yet you object the report of Salman Khurshid, who is foreign minister. Dont you think you have objection of every good faith edits that does not confirm your POV and Yet you blow out of proportion any minor info which does?Rukn950 (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've just finished reading the present version of the article, and it does not read neutral to me, and seems to me biased towards one side and some coverage ignored of the other side, indicating partial "point of view" editing by some editor. I'm tagging the present article with {{overcoverage}} and {{POV}} maintenance tags, and the same should not be removed, until concerns resolved, either by discussion or editing the contents of the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to leave a note here, It'd only take around 1-2 hours to me, to address the tone and format the article accordingly wiki standards, but I assume, It'd most probably not acceptable by the people who wants to see, arguments in favor of their leader or against their disliked leader and I'd soon be reverted by some person. This is why, I'm not editing any of the bohra articles because obviously, it'd be a waste of my time.

Editors here, I'd say, ALL, does not seem constructive to me, towards Wikipedia. I do not really wish to answer any {{ping}} by them. They are free to smash their POV on each other, and do edit-war, I'm not going to interfere, till either one does not get blocked for his disruptive editing. Wikipedia is definitively not a place to push their POV. What can I do here? To persuade and let them know, What Wikipedia is and What Wikipedia is not. Well, I've given it a try much earlier on other bohra article. Yes, a set of editors are editing all bohra related articles.

So, what is the solution here? Editors engaged and edit-warring and pushing their point of view, should refrain editing all bohra related articles themselves. There are millions of other articles, they do not have an idea about, to edit and learn a new subject daily. It seems less-plausible to me. What appears working for me, at this instance, is a topic-ban or full-protection, if some admin wishes to copy-edit to correct the article himself or semi-pending-changes protection, for non-involved editors to do the same. What can I do here? Nothing, wait and watch! I do not have access to tools, but essay and guidelines, what doesn't seem to be working here. Bring editors to admin's attention? They already are reporting each other all around noticeboards. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again Anup(pl. don't mind, I am calling you by your first name, considering age difference and knowing your work and POV about Wiki , which I appreciate), Frankly speaking Wiki has so much articles and its treasure is increasing day by day due to its way of working. Please don't get dishearten by editors behavior. This is human tendency and as you correctly pointed out that every human has its own POV, his choice and he works around them. Important thing is what is his intentions, what moral value he have, how he wants to live in community, whether he is considerate about other's concern, whether he wants to live and let live together and so on. Wiki is a platform and I vision it just more than any thing in world you cannot just define. People are defining it just a encyclopedia, informing the world what reliable sources reporting whether wrong or right. But it has much more in it, we should not limit this platform criteria. There are good faith editors who knows much more then what actually available in reliable resources, which are real facts and true and hidden. People can get all the material from anywhere( all reliable sources), but cannot get material which is some thing extra available in Wiki. Here the difference is, because this platform is open to all and free to edit, self correcting and wrong or false thing would not sustain much. This thing is very difficult to justify and Wiki principles are made in such a fashion that it restrict reader to misuse it. Here comes individual intentions, and that's why COI tool is kept here, but it is very difficult to operate it and really judge who is real culprit. There is provision for good faith edit and so on, but it works only when every body's intention are so good as of Wiki. That's why good faith edit gets fail when there is some miscreant, and he never wants to bring out the thing clear and all wiki rules are to be applied strictly, and similar situation just as on 'Bohra' articles get arisen, as now involve human grid etc.

My self and Mr.Rukn has already declared ourselves Dawoodi Bohra, and from above discussion and the way I edit , my intentions are also well clear. As you said there are so many article available to edit, put frankly speaking I don't have so much time and my age/health also restrict me. Bohra topics, I use to develop, as I believe in Fatimid tradition and faith and try to correct the information to extent possible best of my knowledge as I am involved in it and have basic knowledge. Other third party editor don't have much knowledge about this tradition and request them to help me in getting proper citation etc. to improve them further. Wiki is platform where I want to present the real facts. If it is clashing with some others interest then we have to be more careful about wiki rules and honors them completely and present them considering all POV together and keep it true as per facts as much as possible, and never oppose matter which is presented in Wiki manners. If in dispute taking help of third parties and finally with consensus.

We know that in today's world people can go up to any extent. All the means are available and media/people get advantage out of it. I don't want to see and can not see that any such people take advantage of Wiki at least. That is only my intention. I request everybody's cooperation in this mission. I am a Wiki fan and soldier, and believe in cooperation with all, thanks.--Md iet (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a real pleasure to be called by the first name, rather than the last name (what makes me feel old). Coming back to the point, your lengthy comment above, gives me an idea what may be the possible trouble here, that has given arise to edit-dispute over a set of articles related to a common subject. (And, I'm going to write a lengthy comment as well being jeal of you, Ha!).

Wikipedia may be more than anything for you, but in fact, it is just an encyclopedia (WP:ENC). We here do not represent truth or fact but a summary of information already available in multiple reliable sources. Accept it or not, but this is what Wikipedia is all about. If you take a look at the five-pillars of Wikipedia, it is limited around the same concept. Whatever policy and guidelines, Wikipedia does have, also revolve around the same. We won't have verifiability or notability or some other as such original research policy, if we have to undermine "informations present in reliable sources".

What you know may be true, a real fact yet unknown to peoples out there. But, as it is not published in some reliable or neutral sources, it simply does not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Few lines from your above comment,

There are good faith editors who knows much more then what actually available in reliable resources, which are real facts and true and hidden. People can get all the material from anywhere( all reliable sources), but cannot get material which is some thing extra available in Wiki. Here the difference is, because this platform is open to all and free to edit, self correcting and wrong or false thing would not sustain much.

Yes, Be bold, always. But, Wikipedia really does not publish information, not present, in reliable sources. It is against spirit of Wikipedia, as such that we have a policy here called, "no original research".

I'd say, if you have pretty much misconception about Wikipedia, as such it provides information not present any where else. No, it is not really like that. Wikipedia have hard-working editors from all around the globe, who dig-up sources, do online-offline research to find information and they present the same, and attribute to those sources, they retrieved the information from. And, Wikipedia is different from other sites, not that way, but another way. Wikipedia presents information in a "neutral tone" as such it reads good to both, promoters and criticizers and all information finds their roots to some reliable source. This way, Wikipedia is different, not any other way.

You have a little misconception over WP:AGF policy as well. Yes, we assume good faith, but it is just that, some editors did not knew some policy and guideline, and acted accordingly. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary to any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

Let me know, where do we go from here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dear Anup, for making me more aware about what wiki is. It is good to hear that there are hard working editors, let me add that they are increasing day by day and ,they are such committed that if you stop them editing even for 24 hrs, they feel offensive and want to do and die for it.

I totally agree with you and I don't have any further reservation or personal ego or anything else to not to follow Wiki guidelines as it is designed keeping overall interest and further it's rules are open to all for further improvements.

You can take it granted my full cooperation, and I wouldn't take otherwise of your any comment and you are free to edit my inputs in whatever way you want in Wikiepedian manner.

Now come to the Fatimid topics, as far as I know, this faith is always in tremendous pressure even from the time of it's root the Fatima and Ali, and that pressure still sustains in this modern era (as you must have read in Dawoodi Bohra article). After death of Mohammad, Ali was dragged out from his house by men of Abu bakr and threat was given that if they doesn't open the door of their house they will burn their house where little Hasan and Husain was also present. Imam Husain was brutally killed along with his 6 months old son Ali Asgar in Karbala, whose complete family was kept without water for three consecutive days. Heavy taxation was imposed on pilgrimage going to Karbala for Husain. Fatimid Imam 9th to 11th was to hide themselves with nicknames and world don't have their proper names known even in this Wikepedia, which I as Fatimid Bohra declared with 100% confidence. Imam Husain's head was digged and transferred three times by Abbasid caliph and was kept hidden for years together near sea shore at Ashklan , philistine(now under control of Israel), such that people do not come to Sham Damascuss)to pay homage. It was Fatimid Imam Mustansir who got tracked the place and build again a worship place their for Shia people. Israeli force again destroyed complete place , made it plain ground and build a hospital over it. In this modern era nobody knew that this was place where Imam Husain head was kept hidden for many years together. Fatimid Bohra 51st/52nd Dai got location identified, Israeli authority was approached to dig the place, old proof of the place was found underneath, and small monument was built where Dawoodi Bohra only visit the place. Fatimid Dai were 'gheraoed'(captivated) in Yemen at Zimarmar fort by Zaidian rulers, and they faught very hard to survive fatimid tradition. Finally they couldn't survive in Yemen and they shifted to India. In India also Mughal ruler didn't like Shia principles and they were put into hardship, Dai Qutbuddin was to sacrifice himself, his head was cut by Aurangjeb.

Now you could understand , to keep their faith alive even up to today many facts are hidden in Fatimid literature which is not available to common public. Only rough information are available and it is very easy to manipulate the things by others. My self has corrected many article related with Fatimid, which do not have proper citation and things are written contradicting to each other article and nobody knows. Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi article and his mother article Asma bint Shihab was intermixed, nobody was clear what matter should be where. Both article were having material intermixed. Same thing with Imam Husain daughter Sakina. There were three daughters of Imam Husain one 11years ,one 7 years and one 4 years old, they are called somewhere or other with name similar to Sakina: fatema Sugra/fatema kubra/Rukayya /sukayna. There were only two article on Sukayna/Rukayya amongst three daughter and nobody was clear what is where. I introduced third article and made all three sister clearly defined in each article. Similarly there were contradictory statements in different articles without citation on who/how the Fatimid first caliph origination begin in north Africa. I tried tocorelate them and harmonise the material.

You might be getting bored, but my emphasis is that after doing all hard work all around by Wiki editors, there are some thing get hidden, and many information are still hidden, which is to be completed by help of good faith editors. And to be make them further encyclopedic should be common efforts. Wiki do not take guarantee to provide each and every thing available on earth, but if it is made as far as clear and true to viewer, it will be a another plus point for Wiki.

I will further remember and emphasize that : "Editors is not to continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary to any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Md iet (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Brotalk again you are delving into offtopic discussions , what you have said is highly debatable and you are just presenting you own personal opinions without any evidence . Firstly According to Valerie Hoffman, Western historians largely reject Shi'ite claims of Muhammad having appointed Ali as his successor as fabrications. Most of what you have written is personal views of a sect, against which there is a large body of evidence from third party orientalist sources. I hope you will take this opportunity to read the views and evidences of other mainstream groups[7] and third party academic sources.It is nice that you also want the truth to prevail. And let me tell you I did belong to an Ismaili sect which was also part of a succession dispute like many others and have done extensive research and study on these subjects for the past many years.

Thanks Sumichum, for getting cordial. Please do sign to honour Wiki. It is interesting that you are from Ismaili sect and done extensive research. Let me make you further clear that Valayat (faith) is not dependent for any proof or third party verification from western or damn anything in the world. Valayat is important pillar of Iman and if you don't have Iman you are not a mumeen you may be a muslim. Aiklavya had cut his right hand finger for Dronacharya just for nothing but his valayat of Dron. You may call everything presented above as my personal opinion without any evidences, but they don't need any evidences as they are self proven facts and truth is going to prevail. Bohra's are true Mumeen(hence definitely a Muslim), but they categorise them separate or see them in separate group from other Muslim as they find that they feel that there is something missing for a perfect Mumeen, although very much a strict Muslim follower of Islam. Evidences are physical requirement for Wiki to defend its process or for any judicial process to justify, but they are always present somewhere, only thing is we have to search hard for it. All the above are not off topic discussion, but hard facts about shia/Fatimid/Bohra faith, which you declared as a new innovation, not a Islam. This facts are core heart of articles we are dealing and a nonbeliever cannot judge what is personal or community humiliation, which Wiki cares for its editor over and above all rules it have. --Md iet (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum - Thanks for joining in the conversation. Please place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your posts and comments. It'd generate your signature with date and time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI It seems you have not read and understood others perspective , please see [8]Summichum (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To all good faith editors, This never ending argument between sunni and shia has been going on for 1400 years, this arguments are covered on other places please dont drag it here. just state here what is relevant to the topic.Rukn950 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Start over

Lets start over! Previous discussion seems to have been diluted with irrelevant contexts and personal attacks and policy and guidelines. Why are we here talking on this talk page? We are here to establish a consensus, to write a summary of already available information in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources about ongoing succession controversy in the Dawoodi Bohra community. We are not here to present the truth/fact to the world. Just a summary of information present in multiple reliable sources from a neutral point of view.

What's the problem here? Sources do contradict each other. The same source, who does mention Saifuddin as 53rd Da'i, in his later publication mentions him, a claimant. We should to mention the events chronologically. We've to write a simple, clean, and complete summary of information available to this date. It should be divided into few sections as, "What the actual controversy is", "Why did it happen", "Claims of the people involved", and "Developments after the controversy, as such court cases, comments by other notable peoples, etc.". That's it.

If you people insists on introducing your personal knowledge into this, we would be leading to no where. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have edited your subpage draft for this article, correcting the things as per facts/citation and rearranging them. I expect your further comment there. Your above suggestion is perfect and we may work further accordingly. You may study the present revision and deletion done on this article page and incorporate further material accordingly in your draft.--Md iet (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why the edits I last made were reversed. This article needs significant cleanup for grammar, readability and tone. On the one hand some contextual information is missing which could puzzle an uninitiated reader, and on the other there are instances of repetition within the article and between several related ones. There is no need to exclude any reliable references, or any points of view, we just need to organize it less chaotically. I propose that since there seem to be two clear invested points of view in this debate, we should restructure the page with a minimalist introduction, and then organize two main sections with each point of view. Hopefully, it should be far easier to reach consensus within one camp, and respectfully leave the counterparty to represent their own point of view. Lurente (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks (User :Lurente) for helping out , I had inadvertently undone your edits as I was adding some past content , please redo the changes you made Summichum (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (User:Summichum). If other editors would give their feedback we can work out a non-contentious way forward. Lurente (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lurente, for your constructive and correct approach, and most of all making User:Summichum)agree to add legitimate material which he has deleted 'inadvertently' 3-4 times till now. Chief justice disclosure before late Syednas demise was shifted to 'dispute' para, as that was important there. Support part with exact quote of CJI added at 'Support' para, balancing the both the topics.

Court case part shifted from lead para to 'court case' para, as this was repetition, as it was not so important as stay order is already withdrawn.--Md iet (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of important Nass document

Earlier a important nass document detail was removed from Mufaddal Saifuddin article on the plea that reliable secondary source is not available. This document is very very important, as this is a written proof ,of which photocopies are made public in three different sources ,

1. Dawoodi Bohra official web site : http://akhbar.mumineen.org/archive/fatemi-dawat/

2. A personal website http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/2014/02/01/reason-34-doubt-cannot-undermine-conviction/

3. A international dawoodi bohra magazine ‘Badre muneer’ web site http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm ( same material as of 2,requoted).

As per WP:WPNOTRS, Wiki mention that

a. ‘Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.’, and

b. ‘while specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.’

Hence

1.As per b) above , Wiki permit primary source to use it for ‘specific facts’ on second preference.

2.As per a) above, primary source can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid OR.

These both points are applicable in the present situation. As the photo copy of a important dairy is a document having a ‘specific fact’. and we are considering all media source available as primary and no secondary source is available , hence we have tried all option available at present and we are compelled to use primary source. Hence these sources can be used as per Wiki for presenting this information.

Facts as depicted in the report are presented without adding any OR , and part of dairy material is quoted, please.

Hope all the editors would agree to my above justification.--Md iet (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Source number 2 is right out because it's a blog, so I removed it. The other two sources are very clearly partisan and cannot be trusted at face value; if they carry authority within the Dawoodi Bohra community they can be cited, but in this case "the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

'Back ground' section revision

Please refer above and the article version [[9]], inclusion of a specific document copy (a dairy entry) was perfectly justified as a special case with reference being primry reliable source.

Now User:Qwertyus has removed the same material again, and issued a notice on my talk page , which is not at all justified.

He has also undone other corrections which are done as either reported material here are no where mentioned in the source or one single news report has been generalised. these correction and well reported material are again included by me.

I have not reinstated the report and quote of primary source of a factual information of dairy to have a further look at my justified discussion in the para just above.

Hope my above action is well justified and we will further agree to include factual information of Dairy.

Any further suggestions invited please.--Md iet (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 August 2014

The article may please be restored to [10] version, as all the points till then were well discussed on talk page. Md iet (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Could we get some consensus for this please before using the {{editprotected}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean re-instate all the lengthy quotes from Saifuddin's website, no longer cite the medical stuff in the Background section, and undo a lot of copyediting, again? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Medical reports

I was wondering if the medical reports that are at the heart of the lawsuit are publically available. The Mumbai Mirror speaks of "two of the reviews", and there are three experts so I guess there are three reviews (?). Can these be found somewhere, so we can cite them directly? A medical report should be a reliable source for its own conclusions, if attributed inline. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary Quote

Ceremony video A video made 2011, purportedly showing that Mufaddal was never pronounced successor, was posted by Qutbuddin to YouTube, but then removed after followers of Mufaddal claimed it infringed on their copyrights.[11]

The above statement I feel has no relevancy now as the described video is no longer on YouTube. I don't understand what is achieved by mentioning that on this article.

I request the Admin to delete.Rukn950 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the reasoning. Something no longer existing is not a reason to omit it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Youtube itself cannot be used as reliable reference as my good friends had argued earlier. so why now?. And If you feel that it is reliable reference I would suggest the same video we are talking about, which is still on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge9wG2Irv-Q. tobe included in the reference.Rukn950 (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 August 2014

The largest sect of dawoodi bohra had seen the process of nass (succession) on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin dated 19 June 2011, Sunday in Raudat Tahera, Mumbai near the mausoleum of Syedna Taher Saifuddin, thousands of people were available over there. Video is still there on youtube linked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge9wG2Irv-Q Another thing is we had also seen the same process of nass by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin in Cromwell Hospital London, which was relayed video is seen by the Lakhs of People as it was spreaded world wide. Due to religious purpose and private situation, this is not published on any website, the Bombay court had viewed the same video and marked as an important proof from the side of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin had shared the the place of Dai with Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin many a times in the past two years before the demise of Syedna Burhanuddin especially on the occasion of Muharram.

Mustu6233 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for lack of proper sourcing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 September 2014

Please add following views of central board which are highly relevant to the issue:

Press Conference declares Neutral Stance

A press conference was organised by Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community which is represented by intellectuals in the community recommended taking a neutral stance in wake of the succession controversy, not taking side of any of the claimants.[11]:

"Over the last ten days we have been witness to the ugly dispute over the right successor to the late Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb. This was not unexpected, as the late Syedna Saheb had been unable to clearly nominate his successor for nearly 50 years while he was alive. The claim of both his so-called successors is shrouded in mystery and ambiguity, as there are no reliable and disinterested witnesses to their nomination. The community is therefore both in a dilemma and distress, and is greatly agitated. For nearly 200 years there was no such problem, as the succession was monopolized within one family, with either the brother or the son being nominated by his predecessor. However, now, the stakes are quite high. An unbelievably large amount of wealth has been accumulated over the last hundred years through extortion and exploitation. The dispute is, therefore, not religious as claimed by both the claimants, but for the control of this wealth. Nathwani and Tewatia Commissions in the 1970s and 1990s have fully documented the various modes of this accumulation, and how this wealth is spent on the luxurious lifestyle of one family, and not for the benefit of the community. The Central Board warns both the claimants that if they do not change with the changing times, become liberal, stop malpractices and loosen their control over a docile and peaceful community, they will be consigned to the dustbins of history."

— Official statement of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community

Also the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohras , high ranking intellectual dawoodi bohras like Professor Emeritus Ismail K. Poonawala and Prof Hamdani want the successor to be decided based on their requirements and they would accept any claimant which accepts their demands for the claimants[12]:

-that he is only a Nazim Da’i (administrator) and not a Da’i Mutlaq (with full powers)

-that he is prepared to accept all past and future charities as waqf properties of the community with an independent authority and financial transparency, and that he should not claim to be the sole trustee as claimed by Sayyedna Tahir Saifuddin and his successor;

-that he would accept democratic constitution of all the local jamats and for the Central Jamat Board to be elected directly by the community,and that this body should be consulted by him in all matters affecting the welfare of the community

-that he will abolish all non-Islamic collection of taxes called wajebat and several other taxes at the time of death, such as ruku’ chiththi (recommendation letter that the deceased has paid all his dues and should be welcomed to paradise), etc.;

-that there should be no baraat (excommunication) of an individual member or a family of the community, which is a form of religious tyranny… membership of a community is a voluntary thing;

-that he will put an end to conferring honorary titles based solely on payment of large sums of money;

-that the custom imposed by Tahir Saifuddin to obtain raza (permission) for each and every petty matter is against the teachings of Islam and should be abolished;

-that he should declare his predecessors’ claim to have authority over the jan (soul) or mal (property) of a member of the community as totally against the basic Islamic teachings and bring it to an end;

-that he should be easily accessible to any member of the community and listen to his/her complaint and access should not be controlled by a coterie of henchmen around him, in short, there should not be either an iron or bamboo curtain around him;

-that efforts should be directed towards building a civil society that not only includes the admirable charitable, educational, and social welfare organizations, but also an alternative religious or scholarly elite to prevent the attrition of Bohras to other branches of Islam, and provide the progressive spiritual guidance that is sorely needed. Summichum (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• • The progressive bohra are no longer aligned to Mainstream Dawoodi Bohra. It is a different faction. Their views has no concern to this article.Rukn950 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is already in the text, but properly attributed to the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra and trimmed down to a short mention with references. Summichum, read WP:Edit requests: you are supposed to get consensus first, then make the request. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Back Ground

Please compare following:

"Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital in year 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London hospital followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, while the Syedna had supposedly recovered in a way that "has never been medically explained".[8][9] However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the second in command to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dā'ī l-Muṭlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor.[10] He and his sons based on a medical review report claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100 that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move.[1][5][11] A recent medical review report on succession issue of Mufaddal [5] by Daniel Mankens, chairman of Neurology Beaumont Hospital, Michigan reviews that "It is inconceivable that someone his age and with neurological deficits would have such a profound, yet transient recovery," .Mankens further said that family members usually report even the slightest improvement to medical staff. "It surprises me that such an event would not be documented in the medical record, much less reported to the medical staff," . The former Chief Justice of India , AM Ahmadi, in his personal stand, upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.[12]

"Syedna Qutbuddin’s family had shared certain historical documents with me, some of which are written in Arabic, in which historical facts about the community and the events since the nass (choosing the successor) conferred by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Qutbuddin in 1965 have been recorded. I examined the documents and believe that Syedna Qutbuddin’s stand of the 53rd Dai is principled,"

—Ahmadi, The former Chief Justice of India",

and

"Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London Hospital on 4th June,2011 followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that "has never been medically explained”. However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the second in command to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dā'ī l-Muṭlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private. He and his sons based on a medical review report claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100 that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move. Regarding pronouncement of succession of 4th June (just few days after stroke of 1st june) a report by Daniel Mankens, chairman of Neurology Beaumont Hospital, Michigan reviews that "It is inconceivable that someone his age and with neurological deficits would have such a profound, yet transient recovery,". Mankens further said that family members usually report even the slightest improvement to medical staff. "It surprises me that such an event would not be documented in the medical record, much less reported to the medical staff,". The former Chief Justice of India , AM Ahmadi, in his personal stand, upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.[12]

"Syedna Qutbuddin’s family had shared certain historical documents with me, some of which are written in Arabic, in which historical facts about the community and the events since the nass (choosing the successor) conferred by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Qutbuddin in 1965 have been recorded. I examined the documents and believe that Syedna Qutbuddin’s stand of the 53rd Dai is principled,"

—Ahmadi, The former Chief Justice of India".

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

References

Is the second option of reporting is complete and proper? hope User:Qwertyus or any other editor would not have any further suggestions replacing the para?--Md iet (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The quotes make the final part incomprehensible. It's not clear at all who's saying what. People reading that will have to read the source to figure out what is going on. Actually, I think a summary of the form "X claims that Y" is better than quotes for this. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, you seems to be correct, would you mind helping me further to present the information in a better way? After taking so much interest to improve the article in Wiki manner, and trying to go in depth of the subject, your answer would definitely be yes.

Can we reedit the same as follows;

"Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London Hospital on 4th June,2011 followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that "has never been medically explained”. However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the second in command to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dā'ī l-Muṭlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private. He and his sons based on a medical review report claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100 that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move. Regarding pronouncement of succession of 4th June (just few days after stroke of 1st june) a report by Daniel Mankens, chairman of Neurology Beaumont Hospital, Michigan reviews that "It is inconceivable that someone his age and with neurological deficits would have such a profound, yet transient recovery,". Mankens further said that family members usually report even the slightest improvement to medical staff. "It surprises me that such an event would not be documented in the medical record, much less reported to the medical staff,". The former Chief Justice of India , AM Ahmadi, in his personal stand, upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.[12]

"Syedna Qutbuddin’s family had shared certain historical documents with me, some of which are written in Arabic, in which historical facts about the community and the events since the nass (choosing the successor) conferred by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Qutbuddin in 1965 have been recorded. I examined the documents and believe that Syedna Qutbuddin’s stand of the 53rd Dai is principled,"

—Ahmadi, The former Chief Justice of India".

"There are also reports which indicates numbers of succession pronouncements of Mufaddal before 2011 succession. Court proceedings reflect that Saifuddin's earlier pleading of succession was only refering the year 2011 pronouncement done in London hospital, but after demise of late Syedna, now the case is put up in different way and now it refers that pronouncements were made earlier in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011."" --Md iet (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Hope there are no further suggetion for above, and option suggested is acceptable.--Md iet (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

may please amend the para as per above.--Md iet (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's still not very clear, and it certainly needed copyediting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sucession controversy page - incorrect refrences

Hi, Regarding to you last edit in [13] , you had entered that the stayorder was taken back but the refrences do not say so. even the ref http://dawatcaseupdate.com/ is maliciously mentioned it does not say that the stay order was vacated\taken back, Hence please revert the edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page. The section is Talk:53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra)#Gujrat court case — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 September 2014

Please make a new section on survey among the bohras on their opinion on succession claimants based on: [14]

Text to be added at the end of the last paragraph:

An online survey among the Dawoodi Bohra community revealed that only one fifth of the Dawoodi Bohras support the succession of Mufaddal saifuddin and a little less than one fifth support the half brother Khuzaima as the rightful successor[15]. A cover story on the Bohra survey revealed that most Bohras (46%) support Khuzaima over Mufaddal and many are in the community due to due to fear and force[16]

File:Bohra survey.jpg

Summichum (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The survey is not properly represented, and not analysed properly, it cannot be presented in a partisan way without revealing, and clarifying all the information available in this survey and media.

One of the comment given on the survey is :

"This survey is seriously flawed in selection of the community's sample group, which makes the results and inferences totally skewed and irrelevant to the bohras. See the points below:

1. Nearly 85% of Bohras live within Indian subcontinent but have only 36% participation in the sample group.

2. Nearly 30% bohras have graduate/post graduate degrees but have 88% wightage in the group.

3. Nearly 40% Bohras are computer-savvy but the other 60% are neglected in the survey group totally.

4. Male:Female proportion is nearly 1:1 but the survey group has proportion of almost 3:1.

As can be seen from the above, the results are heavily skewed in favor of/influenced by computer-savvy, highly educated, "foreigner", males.

Thus this survey lacks credibility and has severe errors. I read it as a first sample of its kind but was quickly disappointed when I analyzed the sample group "demography.""

This is purely a partisan reports looking to selected representation. Wiki may not like to include this report without giving all the background information.--Md iet (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the survey is reported and published in front page cover stories in major news paper does demand that it be mentioned in this article , Moreover the points you have quoted are your own made up figures , all surveys however well designed has some flaws , that does not discredit them though and certainly you are not the one to judge esp since your past history. DearUser:Anupmehra QVVERTYVS , Please have a look on this.Summichum (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a survey was held and reported on seems reportable to me, although the text should explain the circumstances and cite the reporting accurately.

E.g., the Mumbai Mirror has the spokesperson saying: "Conceding that the survey, like all online surveys, was restricted to the educated and computer literate, Farida felt that 659 out of a community of 1.2 million was a fairly representative sample." Mentioning this restriction is a requirement for me.

Some back-of-the-envelope calculations show that a population of 1.2mln would require a sample size of about 1100. Regarding the comment that Md iet cites: if those figures (from an random commenter) are true, then the actual population is 480.000, so the sample size is about right. All the other figures that he cites would have to adjusted accordingly. I.e., the commenter is himself lying with statistics. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not done for now: I can't see a consensus here to add the proposed material to the article yet. If such a consensus emerges after further discussion, please reactivate this request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Gujrat court case

Please compare following:

Gujarat High Court case

“Gujarat High Court issued an interim order on 16 April 2014 prohibiting Saifuddin from acting as the 53rd Dā'ī and his supporters from dealing with the trust properties. Khuzaima filed eight writ petitions before Gujarat High Court pertaining to the succession controversy.[30][31][32]”

And,

"Gujarat High Court issued an interim order on 16 April 2014 prohibiting Saifuddin from acting as the 53rd Dā'ī and his supporters from dealing with the trust properties. Khuzaima filed eight writ petitions before Gujarat High Court pertaining to the succession controversy, however this order was 'vacated'(taken back) on the next hearing of 22nd April, 2014.

References

"

Is the second option of reporting is complete and proper? hope User:Qwertyus or any other editor would not have any problem replacing the para?--Md iet (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The final source is a blog. Can you find the actual court proceedings? Are they available online? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I could not find other sources except few sources related with Fatemi Dawat, whom you are refering as primary and not reliable sources. The source

[17] also quote complete official court document word by word.

Both reference are quoting court documents, which are nothing but ‘specific facts’,

As per WP:WPNOTRS: “ Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.” , and same is being followed here.

Without the information about the 'specific fact’, the presented para of Wiki carry altogether different meaning, a clear cut partisan view. Whereas after inclusion of this ‘specific fact’, information is complete and presented in NPOV to Wiki viewers. Will the use of these primary (may be called doubtful) sources are not fair? In the present case, Definitely yes, because they seems to be ‘ reliable and useful in present situation, and they are being used with all caution and with due discussion.--Md iet (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hope there are no further suggetion for above, and option suggested is acceptable.--Md iet (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

may please amend the para as above.--Md iet (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No further comments so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

MSGJ, I don't fully agree with your edit; my objection against using a blog for a source still stands. I've been able to verify the information in the Gujarat High Court's database, and if we must cite anything, then I suggest we cite the court proceedings directly (because a primary source is to be preferred to a partisan source):

Letter Patent Appeal No. 497 of 2014, in Special Civil Application No. 5485 of 2014; Gujarat High Court. C/LPA/497/2014, 22 April 2014.

This website unfortunately doesn't give permalinks, but at least this way interested readers/editors have the appropriate codes to find more documents and we don't need to cite a blog with an anonymous internet user's opinions and editorializing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

How about using a service like the Wayback Machine or WebCite instead of permalinks? EdwardH (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually meant URLs for the individual documents or even queries. Everything has the same URL on that site. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The primary source can be reffered as: {Gujarat High Court, Case type- SCA-Special Civil Application, Case Number-5485, case year- 2014, then down load order: C/LPA/497/2014, 22 April 2014 } for easy access to the document from website, in the format of information desired.--Md iet (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Back Ground Dt. 15.9.2014

As per various suggestions in last discussion above, Please compare the following:

Present version:

"Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital in year 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London hospital followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, while the Syedna had supposedly recovered in a way that "has never been medically explained".[8][9] However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the second in command to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dā'ī l-Muṭlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor.[10] He and his sons based on a medical review report claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100 that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move.[1][5][11] A recent medical review report on succession issue of Mufaddal [5] by Daniel Mankens, chairman of Neurology Beaumont Hospital, Michigan reviews that "It is inconceivable that someone his age and with neurological deficits would have such a profound, yet transient recovery," .Mankens further said that family members usually report even the slightest improvement to medical staff. "It surprises me that such an event would not be documented in the medical record, much less reported to the medical staff," . The former Chief Justice of India , AM Ahmadi, in his personal stand, upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.[12]

"Syedna Qutbuddin’s family had shared certain historical documents with me, some of which are written in Arabic, in which historical facts about the community and the events since the nass (choosing the successor) conferred by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Qutbuddin in 1965 have been recorded. I examined the documents and believe that Syedna Qutbuddin’s stand of the 53rd Dai is principled,"

—Ahmadi, The former Chief Justice of India",

New edited version:

"Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011, after which Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers as the successor in a London Hospital on 4th June,2011 followed by a ceremony in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that "has never been medically explained”. However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the second in command to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dā'ī l-Muṭlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private. He and his sons based on a medical review report claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100 that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move. Regarding pronouncement of succession of 4th June (just few days after stroke of 1st june) a report by Daniel Mankens, chairman of Neurology Beaumont Hospital, Michigan reviews that "It is inconceivable that someone his age and with neurological deficits would have such a profound, yet transient recovery,". Mankens further said that family members usually report even the slightest improvement to medical staff. "It surprises me that such an event would not be documented in the medical record, much less reported to the medical staff,". The former Chief Justice of India , AM Ahmadi, in his personal stand, upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.[12]

"Syedna Qutbuddin’s family had shared certain historical documents with me, some of which are written in Arabic, in which historical facts about the community and the events since the nass (choosing the successor) conferred by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Qutbuddin in 1965 have been recorded. I examined the documents and believe that Syedna Qutbuddin’s stand of the 53rd Dai is principled,"

—Ahmadi, The former Chief Justice of India".

"There are reports which indicate Mufaddal's elder brother Qaid Johar's statement that 'nass was performed on Mufaddal not once but a number of times'. As per court proceedings also, Qutbuddin's lawyer pointed out that Saifuddin's earlier pleading of succession was only refering the pronouncement done in year 2011 at London hospital, but after demise of late Syedna, now the case is put up in different way and now it refers that pronouncements were 'made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011'."

References

"

Hope now the second para is also very clear with needed copyediting as per suggetions last given. Any further comments are welcome.--Md iet (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hope now there is consensus for the above change. May please edit accordingly.--Md iet (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The addition needs copy-editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

FINAL edited version:

Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin suffered a stroke in a London hospital on 1st June, 2011. Subsequently on 4th June,2011 Mufaddal Saifuddin was proclaimed by his brothers Burhanuddin as the successor in the Hospital itself. A ceremony was arranged in Mumbai, weeks after while the Syedna was still recovering. The Syedna had supposedly recovered in London, a way that 'has never been medically explained.' However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, the second in command to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dā'ī l-Muṭlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin 'performed nass on him 49 years ago', a ritual during which he appointed him as his 'successor in private'. He and his sons based on a medical review report claims that 'the succession was not done in London Hospital' as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a 'full stroke at the age of 100 that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move'. Regarding pronouncement of succession at London Hospital, a report by Daniel Mankens, chairman of Neurology Beaumont Hospital, Michigan reviews that 'It is inconceivable that someone his age and with neurological deficits would have such a profound, yet transient recovery.' Mankens further said that 'family members usually report even the slightest improvement to medical staff. It surprises me that such an event would not be documented in the medical record, much less reported to the medical staff.' The former Chief Justice of India , AM Ahmadi, in his personal stand, also upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.[12]

"Syedna Qutbuddin’s family had shared certain historical documents with me, some of which are written in Arabic, in which historical facts about the community and the events since the nass (choosing the successor) conferred by Syedna Burhanuddin on Syedna Qutbuddin in 1965 have been recorded. I examined the documents and believe that Syedna Qutbuddin’s stand of the 53rd Dai is principled,"

—Ahmadi, The former Chief Justice of India".

Mufaddal's elder brother Qaid Johar has stated that 'nass was performed on Mufaddal not once but a number of times.' As per court proceedings also, Qutbuddin's lawyer pointed out that Saifuddin's earlier pleading of succession was only refering the pronouncement done in year 2011 at London hospital, but after demise of late Syedna, now the case is put up in different way and now it refers that pronouncements were 'made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011'.""

References

I have tried my best to copy edit the matter further, would request my fellow editors to help me to further examine it. Hope User:Qwertyus would not mind doing it, as he has taken good amount of interest in the subject and may be further helpful having command on language also.--Md iet (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As there is no further correction suggested to my 'new edited version' just above, we may treat as a accepted version. Request to replace it in article with any improvement from Admin themselves.--Md iet (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Quotation marks are not placed properly, so it's impossible to tell where the quotes start and end. Other than that, the required copyediting seems pretty minor. I suggest replacing "There are reports which indicate Mufaddal's elder brother Qaid Johar's statement" by simply "Mufaddal's elder brother Qaid Johar has stated that" for brevity. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hope now the 'final' edit above is acceptable.--Md iet (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose, there is consensus on above, Admin may please act.--Md iet (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sweet reminder please.--Md iet (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 October 2014

Spelling in Background section - paragraph under quote Please change "refering" (one r) to "referring to" Arjayay (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Text suggestion for including the survey results mentioned earlier

(I made this a new section to restart the discussion; #Protected edit request on 13 September 2014 see above for the previous one.)

I propose to add, as a second paragraph in the section "In the community" (subsection of "Support for the claimants"):

The September 2014 results of an online survey among 659 members of the Munimeen, the Dawoodi Bohra community (395 valid replies) found 21% of 319 who chose to express their preference "absolutely sure" that Mufaddal Saifuddin is the rightful successor to his father, versus 17% who said the same of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Those who expressed doubts preferred Qutbuddin in 29% of the responses, against 11% for Saifuddin. Of all respondents, 64% were "deeply pained and hurt by hearing utterances of laanut", the cursing and social boycotting of other community members, as practiced by followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin. The survey was conducted by an anonymous group via the internet; replies mostly came from educated, computer-literate community members.

References

This text uses the survey itself to establish its statistical findings, because Mumbai Mirror and Hindustan Times cite different numbers from the results. I've explained above why these figures are to be taken seriously, when the context of the survey is carefully explained. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Although published in a responsible source, the survey is totally baseless as samples taken for survey not at all representing a complete society which is in existance from last 14-1500 years of faith ( % distribution of class given at #Protected edit request on 13 September 2014 see above). Reply from so called educated,computer-literate members are also seems to be from a further selected group. When 264 out of 659 , almost 40% are rejected, clearly indicate some mischief, till complete details, procedure and anonymous group identity is not revealed. Wiki is certainly a not the platform to publish a purely baseless, partisan report please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md iet (talk • contribs)

Md iet, it is your accusation of mischief that is baseless. The text above does not suggest that this survey is representative of the entire community, nor does it need to be. Your objection amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so I consider it irrelevant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Qwertyus, if this is not mischief then the source should provide rejection criteria. The text is incomplete. If you claim that this is not representative of community then it should be more specific about which group these numbers represent. Just defining the group mostly from 'educated, computer-literate community members' is not at all enough. This is a article representing issue of a complete society. Incomplete survey don't justify space on WIki even it is from responsible source, when it smell partisan.--Md iet (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with QVVERTYVS This is a serious omission, such survey results should be included ,the user mdiet is clearly a biased follower of Mufaddal saifuddin who many consider as usurper of the throne of "dai" the only thing is that people are not willing to openly speak due to the autocratic nature and financial power wielded by Muffaddal, statistically most surveys have their drawback , but considering the fact that it was published in a reputed news source should merit a mention in this article, this is what the article is about!

I think we should now put this in the article QVVERTYVS?? Summichum (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Qutbi Bohra

The Qutbi Bohra article discusses the succession controversy, but does not actually establish with references to reliable sources that Qutbuddin's followers have established a new sect. In fact, the only mention of "Qutbi Bohras" that I've come across is in an article that predates the whole affair and speaks of rumors that the community would split. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support -Yes, It should be merged for reasons above. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Qutbi Bohra article should be merged with this article and the title should be same 53rd syed..., , the followers of Mufaddal want the other faction to form a sect called Qutbi bohra, Khuzaima denies any formation of qutbi bohra sect. , Qutbi bohra is actually a slander nick name used by their opponents, their official websites fatemidawat.com clearly say they are dawoodi bohras and that too they are having their own parallel administration. Giving Qutbi bohra name is a gimmick to sideline the group and its legal rights on all dawoodi bohra properties, which Mufaddal has forcibly taken over as per various reports.

Also QVVERTYVS a very big thanks for your contributions as this matter is now in courts and trillion dollar worth assets worldwide are at stake because only the daee is a legal owner of these properties accquired in Mafia style by the last two daees of dawoodi bohra. I also request you to see their community members discussion how these Mullahs extort wealth from their blind followers: http://dawoodi-bohras.com/news/2040/52/Vying-for-power-Old-habits-Dai-hard/d,pdb_detail_article_comment/

Summichum (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

'Qutbi Bohra' matter taken here, The article may remain with basic guideline for reference.--Md iet (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've no clue what you mean. Do you want to keep the other article? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The article may be kept as it is, such that Wiki readers will reach directly to the subject. I am of the view that although a complete parallel sect headed by Khuzaima is already formed and in function, the things seems not declared in open, to take advantage/revenge from parental system for the sake of personal envy. Things are pretty clear, there is no chances left for Khuzaima to rejoin Dawoodi Bohra and facts reveals that Mufaddal is natural real successor, and no one on earth can reverse the process. As of now, the most things are covered in controversy page, hence interested reader are directed there for details, and matter need not be duplicated till controversy is clear. Qutbi Bohra article will take its own shape as things develop further.--Md iet (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT, and leave your speculation out of this. As long as we have no reliable sources to back the existence of a parallel sect, let alone one that establishes its name as "Qutbi Bohra", we should get rid of the other page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Md iet -Do you have reliable sources that support what you just said above? It would help us to improve the improve the Qutbi Bohra article beyond its present shape. If what you have just here is nothing but your personal opinion, I'm afraid to say that it is not helpful and a valid ground to let have Qutbi Bohra a standalone article. You comment like, "Things are pretty clear, there is no chances left for Khuzaima to rejoin Dawoodi Bohra and facts reveals that Mufaddal is natural real successor, and no one on earth can reverse the process" is meant nothing to Wikipedia until you can WP:PROVEIT attributing contents without synthesizing to multiple reliable sources.

Addressing your query on directing Wikipedia readers willing to know about 'Qutbi Bohra', we are not deleting the article here. We are here discussing to move the contents of the article in a related and relevant page and leave the original title as a redirect. You may find some valuable information about merging Wikipedia articles at WP:MERGE. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected the other article here. I've also removed Md iet's copy-paste of the article's content to this page, as it was only adding to the noise. We'll have to copyedit the lede: there's still only one source where they reportedly refer to themselves as Qutbi Bohra, and that source predates Qutbuddin's claim of succession. Afterwards, that name seems to only be used by their opponents. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the bold merge. One copy-pasting contents from 'Qutbi Bohra' article to this page must give credit to editors of that page to comply with WP:COPYRIGHT policy by writing an edit-summary linking back the original article the contents is copied from. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Although there is no consensus, merger is acceptable till this article have special Para linking that article as suggested. Merging of article without consensus by User:Qwertyus and repeated deletion of the Para referring 'Qutbi Bohra' does not seem proper please.--Md iet (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made it very clear in the edit summary why that paragraph has no place in the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The violations complied and para defined for Qutbi Bohra who has special coverage in media. Please don't delete it again without proper discussion here.--Md iet (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)