Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is actually died

I am surprized to see that you people are fighting over the death of Gohar Shahi, which happened a long time. There are several references to prove this:

1. Check this link
2. 2nd source

If you have any further question, please don't hesitate to ask.--119.160.56.245 (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid those won't do, as they are vague and not sourced. Letters to the editor are not reliable. Do you have any other references, such as an article in a newspaper that covers his death? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed- per Nuujinn. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 16:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

But this is something we should work on. I'm pretty sure he did die, myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and comment but how can I agree with dispute over death of Shahi, when I myself have been to his tomb and provided many resources pertaining to over issue. You can look and decide yourself, what I am saying is true or not:

1. A report by the UNHCR, shahi death is mentioned here but the date is different
2. An article, which discussed conspiracies against Shahi

• The Pakistani Press Foundation says Shahi was buried in 2001
• The Sunday Telegraph claims Shahi died in 2003

Awaiting your swift response. I am searching more references on that, meanwhile, may I request you to add information from above mentioned sources or restore deleted section. All these sources confirms death of Shahi. Regards,--119.160.26.216 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already presented the UNHCR ref- all it says is that different sources say different things about Gohar Shahi's disappearance/death, and also mentions sources that say Gohar Shahi is alive (Discussion over this on the Simple English Wikipedia). I suppose, though, that we can just attribute it in the "Disappearance" section. We could just say that "According to PP, Shahi was buried in 2001 while the Sunday Telgraph says Shahi died in 2003" or something along these lines. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate to me, since we would be sticking to what the sources claim. Do we have links to those articles? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done + included date for claims already mentioned in the section. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just linked the UNHCR report for now. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 18:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of redoing that section--I broke it into two subsections, one treating the beliefs of his followers and the other covering the press reports we have. Also did some copy edits. Feel free to revert if it doesn't suit. I think it's pretty well sourced now. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I think its pretty good now :), and more neutral. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 19:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This article, it states that The sentences are said to total 59 years. An appeal was filed in the High Court of Sindh and before it could be decided, Goharshahi died and the case was 'abated', the case is only abated in case of death only. Shahi was a Pakistani personality and I am a Pakistani and Omi has never been to Pakistan, how come he say when Government is abating case. It only possible when a party dies. Let me tell you that the Dawn is number one English News Paper of Pakistan and its text is reliable in all the aspects. Moreover, the email address of This article's author is there, you can simply email and ask. It means that above reference is most reliable as it is published and verifiable.--116.71.6.58 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How can you claim that Omirocksthisworld has never been to Pakistan? Besides that, there have been many reliable articles saying many sorts of things, for example the PTI Article says that though Shahi was sentenced to a total of 59 years, Shahi fled Pakistan and is present in the UK, and this is backed by numerous articles, and on the other hand there are articles saying that he may have died in 2001, 2003, 2006 etc, and it is quite messy. You see, if we had this conversation as peacefully as we're having it right now a few months back, wouldn't it have been so much more 'less-abusive'? In the presence of numerous articles stating that Shahi is present in the UK, and odd articles here and there claiming he had died 'somewhat "then", it seems more sensible and neutral to state that Shahi may still be alive, and very likely to have disappeared, as he has been reported to have been in the UK before his "disappearance". --  Dhulfikar  chat?  14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters anyway. 116.... the editorial you mentioned is already used as a reference in the article and is attributed to the author. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sahsan73, 25 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a false claim in this article regarding Dr. Tahir ul Qadri as praising this Gohar Shahi. This is baseless and false. I want to remove this reference from this article as it is misleading.

Sahsan73 (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So, I suppose you mean the part that says, ...and Tahir-ul-Qadri praised Shahi. in the section called "Sufi views".

The reference given was a YouTube video.

As YouTube is not a reliable source, I have removed the 'facts' that were referenced by it, which I will paste here, below, for reference;

However, some Sufis, including Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, Nazim al-Qubrusi, and Tahir-ul-Qadri praised Shahi.When meeting Shahi, Kabbani sat at his feet.

Ref was This Google video.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

"Promotional" edits

Im sorry if my edits seemed promotional, as I didnt intend them to be that way, so Ive changed some of the wording, and all that Ive edited, Ive added references to them, though they may not be 3rd party-refs sometimes. I also made constructive edits in the recent edits, which Scientizzle reverted, so to that, I just want to say, that if you intended to remove the promotional edits, you shouldve only removed what you thought was promotional, rather than the constructive edits (i.e. the references that i put into the right places). - MFI Media|Correspond 17:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I just rolled back your edits. I'm assuming good faith, but despite your intentions, the edits are quite promotional. Also, your user name may not conform to policy, would you be willing to change it? Please see Wikipedia:Username_policy#Company.2Fgroup_names for guidance on appropriate user names. It, as well as your user page, and these edits, taken together suggest you have a significant conflict of interest, and wikipedia policy strongly discourages editing pages in which you have a strong personal interest. You might consider proposing edits here on the talk page for discussion, this article has been a site of some contention in the past. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Using words like "Most Prominent in the World" seems promotional, especially when the reference provided is from an MFI website. Yes, perhaps you should consult with us about changes you want to make to the article, especially if you are not 100% sure its not promotional. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 18:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Do i have to make a new user name, or can I just change my the user name somehow? - MFI Media|Correspond 21:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing_username for guidance on user names. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Recently there hasn't really been many inappropriate edits/vandalism (perhaps due to the fact that the article is semi-protected), so I don't know if this is really necessary. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead or disappeared

Let's not get into an edit war about this, can we find a compromise? Source vary as to what happened, and we must follow the sources. So my feeling is we have to say both. As for the templates, I'm not sure what to do since there is disagreement amoung those who say he died as to the date. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we could say both (but isn't that already mentioned in the "Disappearance or death" section?). As for the template, I think its okay as it is because of the disagreement regarding the date and whether he is actually dead. But we should hear others' opinions as well. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I too agree. It is mentioned in the section regarding this, and I suppose that's fine. According to the sources, many dates have been given, and then there is great possibility of him still being alive, so we cannot determine any date. -  Dhulfikar  chat?  21:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I note the article's currently categorised in "Living people". Would Possibly living people be more appropriate, or Missing people? Shimgray | talk | 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My !vote would be missing people--dead or occluded, he's missing for sure. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This would be my preference too, I think. "Living people", whilst I can see the justification for including it, seems to be taking too firm an editorial line on something which is generally nuanced in the text.

I tend to agree. Your idea seems like a very sensible compromise given the unusual nature of the situation. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)