Talk:Younus AlGohar

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Notability

Hi. I was wondering why this article is not considered notable. Should we add more sources? Suggestions anyone? (Omirocksthisworld (talk))

Absolutely sources would establish notability. But they need to be wp:Reliable Sources showing others such as newspapers discussing the subject. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the reply. I will look for some more then. :) (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I feel that notability of this article has been established. Does anyone have any objections? (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Hi. Could someone please explain how there is a conflict of interest about this article? I thought conflict of interest means trying to promote yourself/someone you are associated with. Please let me know how it seems to be biased and how we can improve it? Thanks.(Omirocksthisworld (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protected

Due to the ongoing edit war, I've semi-protected the article for a period of time. If anyone believes that the article is not neutral, please state why on this talk page and give other editors a chance to address any concerns raised. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me but I saw this at ANI and decided to see what all the fuss was about. Could someone please tell me what is missing that makes this not a nuetral article? If not, then there is nothing to get all bent out of shape about.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if there is anything that should be changed to keep the article as neutral as possible, all suggestions are welcome. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Edit Warring

There seems to be a lot of random vandalism (i.e overuse of ^{[citation needed]} tags and the addition of NPOV tags) going on these days. If someone wishes to discuss what can be done to improve this article, they are welcome to do so here. However, please remember that the objective of this is the work for neutrality and overall coverage of the article, not for the benefit of anyone's personal agenda regarding Younus AlGohar. Before discussing changes please read this article on how Biographies of living persons are handled, and please remember to keep your language civilized and maintain an objective perspective. Please make constructive comments on how to improve this article, providing reputable sources that may possibly be used in the article. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. I hope something can be done about it, as I personally am put off the use of Wikipedia, which I think is not fair, if such things continue to happen. Abusive comments are passed, about which I can't really find any reason. I am not associated or affiliated with MFI in anyway, but comments (which I believe are from the same person, but different ID addresses) claim that I am, which is disturbing. I just want to do some happy-editing to various articles on Wikipedia, as it is both, educating and interesting.

Just to mention, every time someone connects to the internet in Pakistan, they're automatically given a new IP address, due to which, maybe the guy behind this vandalism is using different IP addresses, so as to not be tracked down and blocked. Thanks - Nasiryounus (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting to note, and would explain a lot, as the various IP addresses seem to have similar edit summaries. Anyway, I really do urge the IP editor(s) to express their concerns in a civilized way and attempt to contribute constructively using reputable sources to support their claims. Otherwise, please do stop the constant vandalism done to this article, and please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Full protection

The article is fully protected for a week. Please use this time to make a good faith attempt to air your views on the talk page otherwise the article may be fully protected if edit wars continue.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. While I agree that this article could always be improved upon and expanded, I did not find it constructive when the IP's would edit the article by adding ^{[citation needed]} tags even where there were citations, adding a NPOV tag when there was no dispute going on between editors, and removing a whole section including references. All the while, their only edit summary was "Its not vandalism at all if you are true then you should provide the 3rd party references", which was frustrating to continuously read. I am, of course, willing to work with IP's to improve this article if they discuss things in a civil way and respect the policies stated on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and refrain from personal attacks on editors or the subject of this article. Thanks, and I hope to work out a solution soon. I also apologize for any hard feelings that may have come out of this dispute. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Poor Article!

Once again this article has came up with own refernces. What are the wikipedia administors doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.26.48 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what do you mean 'once again'? Secondly, you aren't even an established editor, and haven't even bothered to sign your artcile, which the 'SineBot' kindly did. I assume that you're the same user that has been harassing this article before and now after the protection has been lifted. Kindly, speak out, what is it that you are here for(?), bringing forth the true facts (which Wikipedia is all about) or being biased and prejudice towards this group, which seems to be against your agenda (as you've depicted).-- NY7 ☆ 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I'm tired of seeing this article constantly vandalized. To the IP address, I'd like to point them towards Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to see how articles like this one are supposed to be handled. --Omi(☺) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is what are you doing your are defending above users, instead of improving this article and asking for reliable sources? Am I wrong if I am asking for 3rd party or reliable source? I know my approach is wrong but my point is what wikipedia rules & regulation is. Please try to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.18.209 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to see where you are coming from...but to me it looks like right now there are third party references (newspaper articles on the persecution he faces for his beliefs, interviews with newspapers, video clips from television interviews, and reports by reputable sources on MFI and Younus AlGohar). Wherever the information was only provided by websites belonging to/pertaining to Younus AlGohar, I used those sources. In addition when I talked about his beliefs in detail (as this is something that has made him Wikipedia:Notable), I cited his published material, which I think serves the purpose well. --Omi(☺) 07:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many of reliable source references provided? DELETE rest of the matterial immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.18.209 (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is really frustrating that you seemed to not have read a single word I typed. --Omi(☺) 07:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is fact and you have to face this fact that MFI is a paper movement, which believes on table stories with easy to count members. MFI and Younus the soor are nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.18.209 (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to your concerns on Talk:Messiah Foundation International. Thanks. Omi(☺) 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of References

Okay this is getting annoying- since the article is littered with fact tags, I thought I would take the liberty to find appropriate sources so that those concerned would be satisfied and edit warring could stop on this article. However, when I tried adding references, Falconke reverted my edits, stating in his edit summary, "why you are playing Carousel with wikipedia?" Honestly, what is the problem here? Should I or should I not add references? Omi(☺) 07:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references you are providing are not reliable, they are your own websites, blogs and youtube, which are not reliable to refer.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I linked interviews as well. For the rest- well, they were claims and/or opinions of Younus AlGohar, so I felt that it would be best to just use his own websites to support claims made about him. I don't recall recently adding YouTube videos or blogs as references. Please stop removing my references, or at least provide a good explanation: your last edit summary "If you are true provide reference to your claim" makes no sense, as I was trying to add references while you were removing them.Omi(☺) 09:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple is that remove those statements/claims, which are not supported with reliable resources.--Falconkhe (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot justify your accusation of these sources and references as not being reliable, as they are solid references, from things that either AlGohar has claimed or what the MFI claims. It's ridiculous how you're removing what others are editing and attempt to vandalize the article with ^{[citation needed]} tags that are totally inappropriate. It's ridiculous, constant and has really, really got to stop! Stop accusing the editors of this article to be part of the MFI, as they've already told you they aren't, and if you continue to do that, it'll obviously come under harassment and vandalism. Respect other editors, as they are your associates in making this article and Wikipedia (in a whole) a better source of information, facts and also rumours (all packed with reliable sources and references).-- NY7 ☆ 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just look at this clearly: Falconkhe, I know you have issues with the organization as a whole. But you put fact tags where there were already citations, or you put them where the article was talking about AlGohar's claims/beliefs, etc. Since it was talking about his claims, I thought it was justifiable to put links to his own websites to support the fact that he actually did make such claims. Please, if you have problems with the organization, it won't help us at all unless you provide references we can use. Until then, please refrain from personally attacking the subject or other editors because this really helps no one. Omi(☺) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of you both is getting worsen than wrose day by day and you (might be a single member) are delibrately working against wikipedia. You need to read and understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources as soon as possible. In order to avoid any mess up.--Falconkhe (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is obviously going nowhere. I think its time to get other people's opinions in. Omi(☺) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC:Is this article too biased?

Does the ~~current~~ content in this article seem too pro or against the subject? If so, what can be done to make the article more neutral? edit: Actually, Please check this version of the article, as this is the version that is getting reverted. Omi(☺) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems like advertising someone either you provide proper/reliable references.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let me check.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falconkhe, you have already expressed your opinion. We need a neutral editor to comment now. Omi(☺) 07:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the linked version and I agree with Falconkhe. Sole Soul (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your input. I'm going to have a look-through of the article and tweak wording to make it more neutral for now. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too much in the favor of Younus AlGohar. I am not a neutral person, rather I am quite anti Younus, so this article seem to be written by Younus himself.

ChJameel (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report on this article

Unbiased links:
http://www.island.lk/2008/09/07/news9.html
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk /news/4645892.Croydon_religious_leader_faces_life_in_Pakistani_jail_for_his_beliefs/
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49997ae7d.pdf
This is wikipedia and I strongly recommend all administors of wikipedia to take immediate notice and action on this article.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to add that the report by Eric Lubbock, 4th Baron Avebury is not published by MFI and shouldn't be considered "biased" as you have indicated, and the "Messiah Herald" included interviews and transcripts from television interviews. I thought it was justifiable to use the self-published sources when talking about claims by AlGohar or information that was only provided by him. Also, even though there are many self-published links, if you look at how much each link is referred to, you'll find that the third party sources are linked to more frequently. Omi(☺) 08:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though, now that I think about it, the video clips don't really need to be referenced, as I am pretty sure the transcripts of speeches by AlGohar will be on the website. Omi(☺) 08:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that, rather than picking on Omi's links, you should research either the MFI or AlGohar and bring about unbiased links and references, keep in mind, that they must be reputable. Thanks, and it'd be honest effort towards this article. Best of luck x -- NY7 ☆ 01:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not my job to do a useless thing like research on MFI, you are the follower of younas, you should provide the reliable references else DELETE all biased matterial from the article. Dont change the TAG untill reliable sources are not provided and all biased is not DELETED from the article.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, so far it looks like you are the one who has issues with the references. Would you be willing to actually help with the article instead of accusing those who are working on it to be "followers of younus"? So far you have been making claims on Talk: Messiah Foundation International and here that AlGohar is a terrorist, and an IP address (who at least seems similarly opinionated) made inappropriate comments about AlGohar in Urdu (see section "Younus is a harami and rundi ka bacha"). Instead of simply complaining about why AlGohar and MFI have articles about them on Wikipedia, why don't you consider helping out? It'd be very much appreciated, and hopefully bring this article more towards the middle. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 00:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omi I am already helping you by telling you the loophole of your article and I am helping you as WP rules & regulation. Don't consider me as your enemy and I request you to not him AlGohar as HE & MFI doesn't belong to Gohar Shahi, call him Younas, which is his original name.--Falconkhe (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not/have not considered you an enemy (though I do not agree with the way you have been handling disagreements on Gohar Shahi-related articles). Now that this has been cleared up, I'd like to request you to please not make POV comments like "AlGohar and MFI don't belong to Gohar Shahi". This article doesn't indicate who belongs to Gohar Shahi anyway. As this is a biography of a person currently living, we have to be extra careful in claims made about him. You keep saying the references aren't good enough (e.g. " Dont change the TAG untill reliable sources are not provided and all biased is not DELETED from the article.") however I have explained my reasoning for using the self-published sources as per WP:BLP. I do not know how much of this article you object to due to personal biases and how much is actually for the improvement of the article- but I'm sure reputable sources you provide will be helpful in improving the article and making it as neutral as possible. Keep in mind though that as this is a BLP we cannot be too critical, as biographies of living person on Wikipedia can directly affect a person's life. We need to respect Wikipedia's policies on BLP (See WP:BLP). Omirocksthisworld(☺) 06:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fact that younas and MFI don't belong to Gohar Shahi. Anyhow, I am writing down how to make a good article. WP:BLP doesn't mean you are might be misunderstood. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

We must get the article right.^[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.^[2] As of January 2010, a push to source all material about living persons is under way.

I hope you understand.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006

Notes

Yes, I do- which is why I directed you towards the page. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 07:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand that & make your article according to WP rules & regulation. --Falconkhe (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MFI is a self-made cult, which was establish by younas (A former disciple of gohar shahi) who was kicked-out by GS in his life. He (Younas) formed this MFI to take revenge with Gohar Shahi of his exile from ASI and started preaching self-made teachings and linked them to Gohar Shahi. The truth is younas and MFI has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi and they are preaching selfmade teachings using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi. I would suggest following to end this edit war pertaining to younas and MFI:

The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar, which he wrotes just to linked with Gohar Shahi. He also has hijacked the website i.e. www.goharshahi.com, which is banned by government of Pakistan due to its blasphyous contents.
The reference should be provide for each statement/claim.

Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them.These are the only suggestion in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.8.21 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falconkhe, you got your reply to this exact comment already. As it was mentioned by myself, nasiryounus and MatthewVanitas-they can't be included since you haven't provided any reputable third party sources to support your claims about AlGohar or his organization. as this is a WP: BLP we can't include these claims about him without reputable sources. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 08:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have don't show respect to our demands, ready to face the consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.8.21 (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making intimidating/threatening comments. I recommend reading Wikipedia: Five Pillars and Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 08:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MFI is a self-made cult, which was establish by younas (A former disciple of gohar shahi) who was kicked-out by GS in his life. He (Younas) formed this MFI to take revenge with Gohar Shahi of his exile from ASI and started preaching self-made teachings and linked them to Gohar Shahi. The truth is younas and MFI has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi and they are preaching selfmade teachings using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi. I would suggest following to end this edit war pertaining to younas and MFI:

The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar, which he wrotes just to linked with Gohar Shahi. He also has hijacked the website i.e. www.goharshahi.com, which is banned by government of Pakistan due to its blasphyous contents.
The reference should be provide for each statement/claim.

Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them.This is the only option in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.8.21 (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Vandalism

Right after the above user stated "You have don't show respect to our demands, ready to face the consequences", this happened. I have been reverting the edits and requested page protection for the article. The IP made the exact same comment as User: Falconkhe which leads me to believe that they are either the same person or somehow associated. Please stop with the vandalism, threats, and generally confrontational behavior. Please respect the fact that this is a biography of a living person. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 09:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Younus is a bastard and its true and I have done nothing wrong in doing that.--116.71.8.21 (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your disruptive behavior and edits, and refrain from making POV comments, as this does nothing for the article. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Younus & MFI

They don't belong to gohar shahi, remove delebrately the name & picture of gohar shahi in this article and use Muhammad Younus (as his original name was this) instead of Younus AlGohar.--Stragewarior (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MFI is a self-made cult, which was establish by younas (A former disciple of gohar shahi) who was kicked-out by GS in his life. He (Younas) formed this MFI to take revenge with Gohar Shahi of his exile from ASI and started preaching self-made teachings and linked them to Gohar Shahi. The truth is younas and MFI has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi and they are preaching selfmade teachings using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi. I would suggest following to end this edit war pertaining to younas and MFI:

The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar, which he wrotes just to linked with Gohar Shahi. He also has hijacked the website i.e. www.goharshahi.com, which is banned by government of Pakistan due to its blasphyous contents.
The reference should be provide for each statement/claim.

Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them.This is the only option in my view.--Stragewarior (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, who gave you the right to demand anyway? I mean, this article isn't to make any party happy, it's here to support facts and not opinions, though there can be section which can conclude of your opinions as a whole (e.g. organization, following and/or movement) but then again, it has to be from a reputable sources, which again, you aren't providing from your many allegations and accusations against AlGohar, from IDs such as Falconkhe and now Stagewarior.

And, to your utter dull knowledge, both www.goharshahi.com and www.goharshahi.pk have similar matter, which, as it seems, www.goharshahi.pk belongs to your "organization" and '.com' to the other party. Now tell me, (even though it won't make much a difference) what difference does it make, if one of these is blocked and the other isn't, what do you want to prove?

Provide whatever you say with reputable sources, please. Or do not pass such ridiculous comments at all. -- NY7 ☆ 05:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is sad

I am not behind this, however, it was very teasing to know that Omi is talking and it seems that, he thinks I am behind this edit war but actually I am not. This edit war is really sad.--Falconkhe (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was simply pointing out that the IP's comments and Stragewarior's comments bore uncanny resemblance to your previous comments. They seemed to share the same opinion as you (compare your comment "I request you to not him AlGohar as HE & MFI doesn't belong to Gohar Shahi, call him Younas, which is his original name" with "The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar" by Stragewarior). Also, both Stragewarior and the IP that was blocked re-pasted your "demands/suggestions". This lead me to believe that either they were associated with you or were you. Or, they could just be a similarly opinionated person(s). If I am wrong, I'm terribly sorry for assuming. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 21:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to know that you are at least satisfy that I wasn't behind this Edit War. This is a fact that MFI is a selfmade cult, which was introduce by younas and younas writes name ALGOHAR just to dodge that he belongs to HH Gohar Shahi and the NAME & PICTURES of HH Gohar Shahi are used by MFI for its' ill-deeds. Again I am very sorry, if you are hurt by any mean. Thanks--Falconkhe (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculous. Same writing style, yet again, from another ID.

Listen Falconkhe, nobody cares about what you're saying anymore. Because, I think everybody's asked you more than a dozen times to bring in reputable sources, but you insist to pile allegations upon allegations. -- NY7 ☆ 06:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculous, listen Nasir, if you have no reliable sources then DELETE this article, if you don't have reliable source, it doesn't mean that WP will not ask about references. Its not a dust bin, its Wikipedia.--Falconkhe (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about we all agree to not have lengthy discussions speculating who is and who is not associated with Gohar Shahi. Look Falconkhe- in the article it clearly states that AlGohar is considered by people in MFI to be the representative of Gohar Shahi. Therefore could you please stop trying to convince everyone that "mfi and younus don't belong to Gohar Shahi"? This isn't a place to convince people that one group is wrong and one is right (we just need the facts here, not POV articles) - however if you could provide a source saying "so and so doesn't consider MFI or AlGohar to be associated with Gohar Shahi" I think it could be included in the article. Meanwhile, I would like to request you to please leave your conspiracy theories out of this discussion (see Wikipedia:No original research) unless you're willing to help me out and provide the sources to back up your claims. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritualism

The same IP is at it again. Be it spiritualism, be it Falconkhe, they're all the same. And they're handwriting clearly shouts that out. The new trend that this certain IP has found, is to change AlGohar's name to 'Muhammad Younuas', whereas it's already listen in the article that AlGohar's name at birth was 'Mohammad Younus', but later was changed. I don't see what the issue is, but this guy's really has some personal issues to sort out before making edits on Wikipedia, because editors like me, are really getting annoyed by such foolish behaviour.-- NY7 ☆ 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They all are the same, ONLY you are different, isn't it?--116.71.9.51 (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing that you people are not ready to face the reality and reality is that you are liers.--Spiritualism (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this polite, shall we, and leave our prejudices at the door before we enter here? You may all take this as a general warning. Rodhull andemu 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned many times, these random IDs and IPs just don't quit their ever-threatening comments and sectarian issues. -- NY7 ☆ 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected again

The edit-war continues, and I have full-protected the article yet again. I suggest any editor unhappy with this either discuss here or initiate some sort of dispute resolution. This has been going on for far too long, and it's now become intolerable. Rodhull andemu 19:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned concerns by myself and other editors in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Hopefully this will help us work things out instead of having certain users blocked/punished for their behavior. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 00:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My review of the protection history of this article shows a protracted dispute, with little prospect of a negotiated solution. Apart from repeated protections, when editors merely wait until the protection expires before reinstating their preferred versions, and nobody is seeking any dispute resolution, it is apparent that other sanctions aside, such as edit-warring, this article needs to go to WP:RFC, and if that does not produce results, arbitration, with appropriate sanctions. I would prefer it not to reach that level. (PS, sorry about the multiplicity of dependent subclauses) Rodhull andemu 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that the report to Wikiquette might be a step towards dispute resolution, however RFC seems like a sensible solution. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 01:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MFI is a self-made cult, which was establish by younas (A former disciple of gohar shahi) who was kicked-out by GS in his life. He (Younas) formed this MFI to take revenge with Gohar Shahi of his exile from ASI and started preaching self-made teachings and linked them to Gohar Shahi. The truth is younas and MFI has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi and they are preaching selfmade teachings using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi. I would suggest following to end this edit war pertaining to younas and MFI:

The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar, which he wrotes just to dodge people that he linked with Gohar Shahi. He also has hijacked the website i.e. www.goharshahi.com, which is banned by government of Pakistan due to its blasphyous contents.
The reference should be provide for each statement/claim.

Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them. These are the only options in my view.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Falconkhe.--Truefighter (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your comments Omi, which were too accusatory. Well I have always mentioned facts and the fact is that you want to promot Younus and his organization and using wikipedia for this purpose. First of all his actual name is Muhammad Younus and not younus algoher. The second thing, which made you (Omi) emotional when I ask for reliable sources but always come up with self publish webs references, which are not accepted on wikipedia. I am asking for authentic and reliable information for readers of wikipedia. Did I do something wrong, its you who wants Edit War not me. You seems very rigid to promote your cause but wikipedia is not suitable place for you to do a thing like this.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I inclined to agree with Falconkhe.--Iamsaa (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course you would as you judging by this baseless accusation, you are similarly opinionated. Now, Falcoknhe, I dont care whatever personal grudge you have against the subject or his organization, the fact remains that AlGohar is legally known as Younus AlGohar, and is referred to in both media interviews and on his personal website. It is mentioned already that AlGohars birth name was Mohammad Younus. I also explained many times why, in certain circumstances their own material was used as references (i.e for information not found in other sources as well as to support sentences such as "They claim to...")- in these circumstances the sources are to some extent acceptable. I have no desire to edit war with you, however my attempts to discuss the article civilly always ends in yourself or some seemingly random IP to turn it into a sectarian issue. I wonder what you mean by my "cause". I'm trying to make the articles relating to Gohar Shahi and his organizations more neutral, which is why I'm even attempting to work with editors such as yourself, who present a view on the organization that is quite different from the norm. It would be good if we could include other controversies relating to this subject, if only you could be a little more cooperative and less accusatory towards editors who actually want to expand the article so that it contains all the relevant and sourced information, and not show the world how great or terrible Younus AlGohar is. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 07:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Younus or Younus AlGohar?

Other's comments have always baseless to you but your baseless articles, which are full of own websites reference carry weight in your opinion. The thing is that you are supporting a lie and you know the consequences, that's why you are doing so, otherwise actuall name of younas is Muhammad younas and not Younus Algohar, which you know very well.--Falconkhe (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Falconkhe, I am not "against" you, and I really could care less about your personal issues with the subject, despite what you may believe. However its in your best interests as an editor to act in whats best for the article and not to promote your strong opinion about this subject, especially when it really does nothing to improve the article itself. I've asked you countless times to provide usable references to support your claims (i.e AlGohar is a terrorist) so that they can be included in the article. This is Wikipedia policy, and the rules are a lot stricter for WP:BLP. Since AlGohar is still living, any unverified material about him on Wikipedia can actually affect him in real life. Also, about AlGohar's previous name- it is already mentioned in the article that Mohammad Younus is his birth name, and the name Muhammad Younas redirects to this article. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Omi, I have nothing against younus and his organization but you are the editor of article and you have no reliable sources to support your claims? His actuall name should be mention rather his alias names or pseudonym or the name he likes for himself. If you haven't reliable sources support this article, you should not have started this article but you started, which clearly shows your personal linkage with younas or you can be younas to promot himself, he can do anything from sending people behind the bars to reward them death as he did in India and Pakistan. Once again, I would ask either provide reliable resources (Not self published websites) or leave this article. Thanks--Falconkhe (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well your comments here, where you claim that "Omi you are getting confused since you are a lier but you don't know one thing that a lie has to be reveal one day. MFI and Younas are the terrorist, this is the reason you have to flee from Pakistan and this is the only reason that you people are facing legal problem in all other countries whereever, you are taking shelters, the people of MFI have misused the law of UK and used it for taking legal shelters under the umbrella of asylyme, you have misguided British Government and provide false proof (like you are doing on wikipedia) to them. We are planning to use interpole to bring younas back to Pakistan and hopefully it will not take long time" shows a clear COI with the subject. You don't even know me, so please stop with the accusations. Look, he is most referred to as Younus AlGohar- even The Guardian here, Asian Pulse News' here, The Island Sri Lanka here, And the UNHCR here refer to him as such. Therefore, the article is called Younus AlGohar, however it is already mentioned that his birth name is Mohammad Younus. I don't see the problem here. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How poor? You got only three or four references to support the whole article. For your information and attention the policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons: unsourced material must be removed from those immediately.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided were those third party refs that refer to the subject as Younus AlGohar. Other sources include a report by Eric Averbury, here, where hes mentioned as Younus AlGohar in the Expo information, and even critical reports from the Daily Times Pakistan refers to him as "Younus Al-Gohar". And yes, you are right, the article could indeed use many more references, but this especially includes references for claims such as "AlGohar is terrorist". Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view is that the article should be on his actual name rather his alias names or pseudonym. --Falconkhe (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems more sensible and relevant to his notability to have the article named as it is, and just include the fact that his birth name is Mohammad Younus for those who are confused about it. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be named Mohammad Younus or Younus AlGohar?

There is a dispute between primarily myself and another editor over whether the name of the article should be moved to Mohammad Younus, the subject's birth name. I support keeping the article as it is because the subject is referred to as Younus AlGohar in the references, in media, and also refers to himself as such. On his organization's website he is referred to as Younus AlGohar- therefore it seems like he is most known by this name. The other editor believes that the lesser known birth name should be used because the use of Younus AlGohar seems to somehow promote the subject. Comments from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article should be one real name and not on other names because its an encyclopedia and it should have articles on real names.--Spiritualism (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be more appropriate to have an article on original name.--Truefighter (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article should be on real name.--Asikhi (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editors please. Asikhi, from this edit it is clear that you also have a COI with this. We need people who have nothing to do with this subject or the organization to comment in the best interest of the article. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read through this and I'm more than a bit confused. Where I come from, we refer to people by their chosen name if they change it, the idea being that a person has a right to change their name. For example, Muhammad Ali rather than Cassius Clay, or Malcom X rather than Malcom Little. On that basis I'd be inclined to leave the article named Younus AlGohar. But I sense I'm missing some of the cultural background on this issue. Clearly, the notion of using Mohammad Younus as the name of the article is somehow insulting to a number of editors. I confess, I know nothing at all about this person or his organization or backgroud, so I'm as uninvolved as one can be. Would it be possible for someone to explain why the use of Younus AlGohar is insulting (please, keeping in mind that I'm completely ignorant of the topic)? tia, Nuujinn (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the subject of this article, Younus AlGohar, claims to be the "representative" of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (a spiritualist), thus changing his name to Younus AlGohar, presumably to reflect that. There are basically two groups of people who follow Gohar Shahi- one group which believes AlGohar to be the representative of Gohar Shahi, and another who do not believe this. I think the person(s) who has issues with the article being named Younus AlGohar is from the latter group- and I think they consider it offensive because in the name Younus AlGohar, "Gohar" (as in Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi) is attributed, thus linking the subject to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. So, basically its a sectarian issue- at least, thats what it looks like to me. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 01:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up, thus far

I have no horse in this race; the future of this article is a matter of supreme indifference to me. However, I am pleased to see some discussion occurring. It is only in this way that any consensus can be reached, and continued fighting for the truth is not constructive to what we should be here for, which is to build a neutrally-worded encyclopedia. If this article goes to Arbitration, the results may not be as expected by any of the parties, and that is true however long the delay is while this article is protected. Winston Churchill famously said that "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war", and that is the position I take. I hope you will sort this out between yourselves without the requirement to escalate elsewhere. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I too hope this can be worked out among ourselves. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 06:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to me if someone who does feel strongly that the article's name should be changed, could outline briefly why simply documenting these concerns in the article itself is insufficient. Clearly, documenting any of the controversy surrounding this individual is a Good Thing in terms of wikipedia's mission. Nuujinn (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.-- NY7 ☆ 01:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat of request

I'd really like to hear from someone who objects to the current naming of the article--I have no interest in any particular outcome to this discussion, and am merely trying to understand the nature of the dispute. My hope is that if I can reach a better understanding of what is going on here, I may be able to be of some small help in achieving consensus. Nuujinn (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is encyclopedia and article should be on real name and not on ghost names.--Spiritualism (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a wider issue here. Regarding the long-running content disputes over articles and pages relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, I have opened an WP:RFC. Please see: Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritualism, I'm not sure quite what you mean by "ghost name". It seems that there's no dispute that Mohammad Younus is the subject's original name, and that this person has adopted the name Younus AlGohar and used that for the last two decades or so. My impression is that you and others regard this usage as somehow insulting in a religious or spiritual sense. Why is it not sufficient to discuss this issue in the article itself? Nuujinn (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far, as I've experienced, a few IDs from random generated IPs seem to come up and post comments and play havoc with these few articles all in the name of religion with their sectarian-based issues. E.g. Falconkhe and Spiritualism, both are different IDs but the comments passed by both IDs always seem to be too similar too many times to be just a coincidence.

This issue definitely needs a dispute content, as it is both long-running and unresolvable so far. But thanks for your insight, time and interest, it means a lot. -- NY7 ☆ 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC

RFC: Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, Younus AlGohar and associated pages

Hi, regarding the long-running content disputes over articles and pages relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and Younus AlGohar, I have opened an WP:RFC. Please see: Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 12:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a no dispute whether Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi actually died, disappeared, or went into "occultation". We believe that he went into Occultation on 25th November 2001. The only organization HE founded was Anjuman Serfroshan-e-Islam and not MFI. Younus has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi, younus is using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi for his ill-deeds. Through,RAGS International, The Representative of Gohar Shahi & Messiah Foundation International, Younus AlGohar, younus and his companion are using Wikipedia for self promotion of his self-made teachings. So, my point of view is that Younus should stopped on this stage, he shouldn't allow to use wikipedia for his ill-deeds.--Falconkhe (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the dispute-page:

Ok, I'd just like to mention that I'm really glad that a dispute resolution has been raised. Falconkhe, there is clearly dispute regarding Shahi's death or "disappearance" on the internet. I advised you to correct Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi as it was lacking information that was provided on the internet, and let me remind you Wikipedia is not about what you believe, its about what people think about and what information has been provided regarding a certain issue on the internet. You were told to bring about a reputable source that stated that Shahi had died, however, I found sources that said that Shahi had "disappeared" and has not died, and believers think this to be a fulfilment of a prophecy of the Mehdi. I just think that the information that is provided on the internet should all be on Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, because Wikipedia shows all angles of a certain topic, and Faclonkhe, who claims to be a follower of Shahi, is obviously only providing bias and one-sided information, whereas two or three editors, including me are striving to bring this article to justice, and when I do so, I am accused (by Faclonkhe) to be "emotionally" attached to AlGohar, which I obviously am not. I personally think that this article should include everything regarding Him that is available on the net, it should be able to mention what people actually think about him as a whole. For example, the issue of his 'Mehdi-hood', that seems to be a great issue over him on the internet, and if you see the original context of this article (formed by Falconkhe) it doesn't seem to mention it at all, and just mentions 'Shahi denied such accusations'. This article has obviously not been doing justice to its potential, and I am just trying to bring this article to its best and to its utmost justifiable state. Thanks NY7 ☆ 19:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected yet again...

More edit warring? Stop. Discuss the issues here. Further disruption may result in blocks... — Scientizzle 19:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view this article should be transferred on his actual name.--Falconkhe (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think user Falconkhe is right here, I agree with whatever he has said.--Spiritualism (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that this article should be transferred on his birth name, we can mention in this article that he is also known as Younus Algohar.--Your Message (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see the results of the sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe, WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT when weighing up the above support. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your reasoning as per User:Nuujinn's request on the section "Should this article be named Mohammad Younus or Younus AlGohar?" Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. The problem with changing the name as I see it is that in the news media and on pretty much all of the web sources, he is known as Younus Algohar. With all due respect. My understanding is that some people feel this is somehow offensive to the memory of Gohar Shahi--is this correct, and if so, why is this so? As I've mentioned, in my cultural background we generally let people change their name if they so choose. Please help me understand why this is such a divisive issue. Nuujinn (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is taking shelter by changing his original name, which is Mohammad Younus. Kindly review and change this article name. The reason he is using the name of Gohar Shahi, please this is my humble request to change this article name.--Your Message (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be dense--please try to explain this as if I were a small child as I am ignorant of these issues. Since his original name and the name he chooses to use are both well known to be associated with his physical person, how is using the Younus Algohar a method of "taking shelter"? If anything, this seems to attract unwanted attention. And as far as I can tell, he's not using the name Gohar Shahi to identify himself, only claiming to be Gohar Shahi's successor. The question I'm trying to get an answer to is why using Younus Algohar as the name of the article on wikipedia is such an issue, especially given that the article gives both names in the text. Please help me understand your position fully, Nuujinn (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Nuujin's said. But where you say that AlGohar claims to be successor to Shahi, I disagree, because according to this article, AlGohar says that 'Shahi has "merely disappeared" and "shall soon return", and he is just trying to make the following understand as well as preach Shahi's mission to the global society'.

To my understanding, Your Message is (as you said) attracting unwanted attention, and I too don't understand what's the issue having the articles name 'Younus AlGohar' because it does mention both names, and to tell the truth, legally his name is Younus AlGohar, not Mohammad Younus. -- NY7 ☆ 19:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my culture, allowing someone to keep their preferred name is usually the way its done as well (I'm Indo-Canadian).Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting--is there a way to verify that his name is legally Younus AlGohar? And just to be clear, I should have been more precise in my use of successor--I think what I should have said is that he and his followers seems to believe that they are continuing on the path recommended by Gohar Shahi, although clearly other disagree with them (but that could also be wrong). Nuujinn (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that way since hes reported as such from third party sources...but, is there some place we should contact to confirm it? If anyone knows, advice would be appreciated. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 02:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about the use of sockpuppets on this and related articles. Am awaiting advice and may initiate an investigation. Esowteric+Talk 11:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the investigations being done, because I'm pretty sure that Your Message or User:Falconkhe and many other IDs and IPs are but one person, and since this has been brought up User:Falconkhe decides to investigate me for sock-puppeting? All I've got to say is go ahead, because I've got nothing to hide, you can check my history etc. Thanks NY7 ☆ 19:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe‎.

After another sockpuppet investigation, checkuser result was confirmed and again unambiguous. Asikhi has been indefinitely blocked. Spiritualism and Truefighter were previously indefinitely blocked and Falconkhe has ~~a 1 month~~ indefinite block. Please take this into account when deciding on this issue. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 17:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iamsaa has also been indefinitely blocked for the same reason. Esowteric+Talk 17:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, an Administrators' noticeboard/incidents report has been filed. Hopefully this will not only address block evasion but also the wider picture of content disputes on all sides. Please see AN/I thread. Esowteric+Talk 14:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPS References

This article has most of WP:SPS references, this is to request all the administrator to look into this.--116.71.8.240 (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has filed an AN/I here. Esowteric+Talk 09:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned earlier that Omi & Nasir are biased & using WP for advertisement, nasir is constantly violating wp. This is the evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.54.20 (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Younus AlGohar & MFI disputed articles

Can some administrators look on above mentioned articles, as the editors of these articles are very biased and using WP for advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.54.20 (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All wp:SPS references have been used.
They using WP to preach their dogmas.
Above mentioned articles urgently needs a clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.54.20 (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned earlier that Omi & Nasir are biased & using WP for advertisement, nasir is constantly violating wp. This is the evidence, another evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.54.20 (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could provide some more detail about how you feel that the references are inappropriate. Certainly AlGohar is a controversial figure, and I among others here would welcome additional references that are verifiable. Unfortunately, simply asserting that the references are improperly used is insufficient, can you clarify here what exactly you feel is improper, and why you feel it is improper? Please keep in mind that WP is an encyclopedia, and we are not here concerned with truth. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point and what I strive to do. Controversial figures such as this need to be presented with verifiable and reputable sources. But when that is followed, I become "bias". --- Nasir | ناصر یونس have a chat 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is totally biased I have spent hours to research and verify the claims on this article but the result is all WP:SPS references have been used, dont you think that this article should be taged? While you yourself termed Younus & his organization as a controversial. All supplied links are biased. I found only three neutral references. Rest you can see and verify.

Unbiased links:
http://www.island.lk/2008/09/07/news9.html
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk /news/4645892.Croydon_religious_leader_faces_life_in_Pakistani_jail_for_his_beliefs/
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49997ae7d.pdf
This is wikipedia and I strongly recommend all administors of wikipedia to take immediate notice and action on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.4.123 (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Can some administrators look on above mentioned articles, as the editors of these articles are very biased and using WP for advertising.[reply]

All wp:SPS references have been used.
They using WP to preach their dogmas.
Above mentioned articles urgently needs a clean up.

As I have mentioned earlier that Omi & Nasir are biased & using WP for advertisement, nasir is constantly violating wp. This is the evidence, another evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.2.101 (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the list of links, I have started to incorporate some material from them into the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article pruned

I have removed some of the more overt puffery from the article. Please work on the article using only reliable independent secondary sources. Avoid self-published sources other than for uncontroversial and minor details. The more mainstream the source, the better. For preference let's have some more Western sources as well, since he's active in the UK. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help and contribution, Guy. Esowteric+Talk 13:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll help as much as I can, and thanks. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about reference # 2 to 9, which are clearly WP:SPS references?--116.71.28.112 (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for specialist help with the articles

Have left a note asking for specialist help at the new religious movements workgroup talk page here. Esowteric+Talk 18:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article critical of Younus AlGohar and MFI

An aggrieved IP has put forward this article, which is highly critical of Younus AlGohar and MFI. Esowteric+Talk 09:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs) noticed, the references look impressive at first glance ... until you actually click on them. Esowteric+Talk 09:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew that Omi would refuse this article and lame reasons were presented from Omi as per my calculations, but this is up to the Wikipedia:Verifiability and you can't ignor it, as it contains true information, a lot of research work and even the author took interview of younus on telephone.--116.71.7.194 (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly educates the reader about the POV of those opposed to YAG and MFI, that's true. You should take the article to the Reliable sources noticeboard and ask uninvolved parties there. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Esowteric+Talk 09:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators of wikipedia are very biased, that's they have ignored [1] & [2]these sources, particularly for this article.--116.71.14.38 (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why people disapprove personalities, by Sayyed Aamir Ali, is plagiarized and cites no reliable sources.

The paragraph beginning "Among other Sufis, al-Hallaj was an anomaly ..." was taken without attribution from Mansur Al-Hallaj.
The paragraph beginning "[Another example was Ibn-e-Arabi,] Ibn ‘Arabî (1165–1240) can be considered the greatest of all Muslim philosophers ..." is taken from the Ibn Arabi entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Much of the rest is taken from asiinternationals.com and rearranged.
And many of the readers' comments are similarly sockpuppets, meatpuppets or plagiarists. Esowteric+Talk 12:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this, the article has been used for citation in the Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi article in other languages- i.e. Norwegian and Arabic. They were added on April 1st by an IP (i.e. here). Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other stuff exists, and if as Esowteric demonstrates we have access to the sources used in the reference, why not use those directly as appropropriate (and obviously, not all are appropriate)? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see- so you mean we could use text straight from the Standford dictionary or asiinternationals.com as sources for the article? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I mean is that we might be able to backtrack any useful information to original sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Yes, I think that's a good idea. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not consider this article?

I would really like to be able to use that article. The major issue with it is that when I click on the footnote numbers, I do not get a link to a source, but rather get taken to google mail. Without proper sources, we can't use it, since it can't be verified. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then that seems to clearly show that the article doesn't seem to be verifiable and reliable, as it doesn't seem to lead to real sources or reputable news articles. I've tried clicking on the same, and it shows random Google Mail pages too. ---- Nasir | ناصر یونس have a chat 13:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Now, if someone knows the author or can find another instance of the same article with intact references, we could work with that, at least in terms of tracking down the referenced materials. But that link is pretty much useless in its current state, we can verify any of the data in it. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've look for the article- its on many Islamic-oriented websites, but without intact references. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 23:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Sayedi Younus AlGohar

Hi, I'm a representative from the MFI, and am new to Wikipedia. Would love some help. I'd just like to add an image of Mr. AlGohar to the article, and do not intend any mischief nor expect any conflict. -- Stevebell777 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't mean to be hindrance to any work that may be going on, rather thought that the small edits I have made, would be thoughtful and wouldn't cause any damage to the editors efforts. ---- Stevebell777 (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, it's very considerate of you. Thank you. We get more of an insight of what the MFI members may call him, and the pictures looking nice too. Thanks. - Nasir | ناصر یونس have a chat 01:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay to me. Just remember not to bold anything in the article besides the actual subject. :) Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His Goals

I want to include a section the the article about his goals. Its references are from his own websites, which im thinking is ok, since it advocates his aims and should be added to the article so that readers can know what he's aiming for. - MFI Media|Correspond 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? - MFI Media|Correspond 01:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose its fine. We've just had too many people abuse this page, hence over-protective. If references are included, fine, as well as working enough for viewers to analyze them; then I suppose you can go ahead with it. Thanks for the cooperation, don't get it much :). Dhulfikar chat? 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Yes its referenced and the references work fine. - MFI Media|Correspond 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb, but im adding a few more sections, they're also referenced, but were removed before for a reason not available. - MFI Media|Correspond 01:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem at all. As I said before, whatever you add should be well-referenced, and if its something regarding his personal views, I doubt his personal views and opinions would gain any coverage as yet, as his public status is still "in the making", so I guess you could add references from his/their website/s. --- Dhulfikar chat? 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and also for replying fast. - MFI Media|Correspond 01:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That's just because I've got it on my watchlist. I suggest you post your additions to the article here first, and if it seems ok, you can go ahead and post it. --- Dhulfikar chat? 01:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay;

Beliefs and views

He does not claim to be a Muslim but rather a "devout servant" of Ra Gohar Shahi, and he practises what he considers the latest religion, "the Religion of God" ^[1] which AlGohar claims Gohar Shahi has introduced to the whole of humanity.^[2] He claims that he does not reject any religion including Islam but argues that the spiritual system in all the religions has diminished now, and the humanity needs a fresh guidance.^[3] AlGohar believes in all the Prophets, the Messengers and the saints no matter what religion do they come from.^[4] He claims to not hate or reject any religion at all, however, he asserts that these religions have been modified with the passage of time, and this alteration in the religions have caused them to fade their original glory which helped humanity find God.^[5]

^[6]

About Islam

In regards to today’s Islam, AlGohar considers that the contemporary form of Islam is not the "Islam that the Prophet Mohammad founded".^[7]

“At the time of the Prophet Mohammad, there was no denominations like the Wahhabis, the Sunnis and the Shiite. The Muslim Ummah divided itself when the Noor excreted out of their hearts. People have lost contact with God, because they lost the true application of Spiritual sciences.” ^[8]^[9] He believes the contemporary form of Spirituality that Muslim Sufi's practise isn’t the original teachings of Sufism. “Sufism is all about inner-purification and getting united with the Essence of Divinity.” ^[10] In a press release, AlGohar quoted Ra Gohar Shahi as saying: “In order to recognize and reach God; learn spiritual sciences no matter what religion or sect you belong to.”^[11] - MFI Media|Correspond 01:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good enough to me. Dhulfikar chat? 01:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some cleanup, and I've removed the goals section. I've added a more condensed version to the "Beliefs and Views" section. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 01:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr.Omirocksthisworld. - MFI Media|Correspond 01:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've also tidied up some references, and I'm off to format some more.Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 01:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Universality of Ra Gohar Shahi's Teachings". Retrieved 11 October 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
^ Cite error: The named reference islandinterview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Whalley, Kirsty (September 30, 2009). "Croydon religious leader faces life in Pakistani jail for his beliefs". Your Local Guardian. London. Retrieved 11 October 2009.
^ Cite error: The named reference functionofmfi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Structure and objective of the Mehdi Foundation and the perception of this movement in Pakistan (PDF), December 5, 2008, retrieved 11 October 2009
^ "Do you await a Messianic personality?". Retrieved 11 October 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
^ "His Holiness Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi in the mirror of our observation". Retrieved 11 October 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
^ "The Tower of Divine Love and Light". Retrieved 11 October 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
^ "A detailed introduction to Mehdi Foundation International And it's Objectives" (Press release). MFI. 21 August 2007. Retrieved 11 October 2009.
^ "Connecting Humanity with God" (Press release). MFI. unknown. Retrieved 11 October 2009. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Brief History of MFI" (Press release). MFI. August 21, 2007. Retrieved 11 October 2009.

Controversy

1)Younus is a very controversial figure. When he emigrated to UK from Pakistan, his name was Mohammad Younus. And there is only one AlGohar and that is Sarkar Gohar Shahi not Younuuuuus, so whenever his name appears in this article it should contain the word Younus. If he has changed his name to something else, then he is alive and living in UK, he can say that himself.

2) Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, an organization which was founded by Sarkar Gohar Shahi.

Who disputes that assertion ? All early books published by Sarkar Gohar Shahi state that fact, on the back cover.

3) The Pakistan-based organization disapproves of Younus AlGohar, and considers him as an enemy of Shahi.

This is also a known fact.

4)Anjuman Sarfroshan-e-Islam considers him to be an "agent of the Jews", or an agent of British Intelligence agencies and a dedicated enemy of Islam.

Younus himself told me that many years ago that he was first employed by London police and then by British intelligence.

So I am putting these edits back in. If someone disagrees please give reasons.

ChJameel (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have [WP:RS|reliable sources]] for these assertions? Your personal experiences cannot become article material on WP, and the back covers of books by Sarkar Gohar Shahi are also not reliable sources. And if sources about Mohammad Younus/Younus AlGohar use Younus AlGohar, then so do we, and by our MOS, we reference to him by his last name (unless there is a cultural reason not to). --Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) About the name of Younus, his full name must be used bcoz using AlGohar implies that he is speaking for Sarkar Gohar Shahi, which is not correct.

2) Sarkar Gohar Shahi have written in his brief autobiography (Roohani Safar) that he founded ASI after coming to Hyderabad from Sehwan and when the number of his followers increased.

3) I am follower of Sarkar Gohar Shahi and a member of Anjuman Sarfroshan-e-Islam, neither you nor Younus are in a better position than me to know what ASI thinks of Younus. And ASI calls him an "agent of the Jews", or an agent of British Intelligence agencies and a dedicated enemy of Islam, and many other unprintable titles given to Younus.

ChJameel (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your points,

1) I'm sorry, but I simply and respectfully disagree, and I do not think that your view is supported by WP Policies. Reliable sources such as this one refer to him as Younus Algohar, and we follow what reliable sources say.
2) Sarkar Gohar Shahi is not a reliable source for information about what he has done. I believe that his own books would be considered self-published.
3) I am aware of the conflict between ASI and his. If you are a follower of ASI, you may well have a conflict of interest, and thus this may not be an article that you should edit. Generally speaking, disinterested editors can do better work than editors with a COI, so please review that policy and think about this a bit. Also, what I or you think is not relevant--see WP:RS and WP:TRUTH.

The short version is that you need to provide reliable sources for your edits. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of press releases for criticism

We cannot use press releases issued by an opposing organization for criticism of a living person. Press releases may only be used for information about the organization issuing the release. All critical information must be referenced to reliable, third-party sources. Yworo (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 Masters Degrees?

That's a claim and a half - the kind of claim made by someone not completely familiar with the academic world as a whole. I'm sure one or two of them might be real, but where were the bulk of these Masters degrees taken, and would they be accredited internationally? Could this be - dare I say it - either a lie or some fake use of the word by a dubious institution? Usually there's a time requirement, they can't be done concurrently, and universities are VERY reluctant to allow more than 2 or, in extreme cases, 3, without going on to a PhD at some point (which one infers he has, strangely enough, not done). Is there any evidence beyond the organisation's own website? It's not unheard of for leading figures in religious groups with views many might see as rather unconventional to have rather exaggerated claims made about them, especially if hold the title of 'CEO' in this religious organisation. Harsimaja (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AlGohar went to the University of Karachi, in Pakistan, which probably has different standards than universities in, say the United Kingdom or the United States. I have not come across any source besides goharshahi.us that states that he has 11 masters degrees, so perhaps for the sake of verifiability we should remove this? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 06:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unnotable

Clearly fails WP:BIO. You can tell this is the case if the article tries desperately to conjure up notability based on an interview in an obscure Sri Lankan newspaper, and an item on the Your Local Guardian website about Croydon. The MFI may or may not be borderline-notable for Wikipedia, but being the leader of a borderline-notable organisation does not make you borderline-notable for your own biography article. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The grounds for notability in regards to Messiah Foundation International and Younus AlGohar seem to be the persecution faced for their beliefs. Perhaps this article should be shortened to reflect that. I have started removing information that seems out of place or biased in this article. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 03:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article is as bad as (𒁳) has made it sound. It does have its share of notability, and I do agree that the article should be shortened to reflect what is notable, however calling it borderline-notable is not how I'd describe it. Dhulfikar chat? 20:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The current image being used is over 7 years old.

I have uploaded a very recent picture that may be used, on the following link:

Picture of Younus AlGohar

Dhulfikar chat? 03:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've changed the profile image. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 02:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Jimbo4-1] Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.

[Jimbo-2] Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006

[universalityofgohar-3] "Universality of Ra Gohar Shahi's Teachings". Retrieved 11 October 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)

[islandinterview-4] Cite error: The named reference islandinterview was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[croydon-5] Whalley, Kirsty (September 30, 2009). "Croydon religious leader faces life in Pakistani jail for his beliefs". Your Local Guardian. London. Retrieved 11 October 2009.

[functionofmfi-6] Cite error: The named reference functionofmfi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[structureofmfiunhcr-7] Structure and objective of the Mehdi Foundation and the perception of this movement in Pakistan (PDF), December 5, 2008, retrieved 11 October 2009

[8] "Do you await a Messianic personality?". Retrieved 11 October 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)

[9] "His Holiness Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi in the mirror of our observation". Retrieved 11 October 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)

[towerofdivinelove-10] "The Tower of Divine Love and Light". Retrieved 11 October 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)

[detailedintrotomfi-11] "A detailed introduction to Mehdi Foundation International And it's Objectives" (Press release). MFI. 21 August 2007. Retrieved 11 October 2009.

[connectinghumanitywithgod-12] "Connecting Humanity with God" (Press release). MFI. unknown. Retrieved 11 October 2009. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[breifhistory-13] "Brief History of MFI" (Press release). MFI. August 21, 2007. Retrieved 11 October 2009.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]