Jump to content

Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Omirocksthisworld (talk | contribs) at 09:28, 3 April 2016 (I've found the archived urls to be working). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeRiaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 19, 2007Articles for deletionKept
March 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My !vote would be missing people--dead or occluded, he's missing for sure. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree as well, I think including him in both Missing people and Possibly living people is more appropriate. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the documentation, it seems PLP is for "people who we think might be dead due to having been born a long time ago", whilst MP is for people who we would not ordinarily assume might be dead simply due to age, but who we *know* to have vanished for other reasons. I'm not sure categorising in both is the best approach. Shimgray | talk | 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I think it would be best to go with "missing people" as well then. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 21:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I've made the change, since there doesn't seem to be any objection. Shimgray | talk | 22:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken article

This article was clearly either written or deteriorated by adherents of this movement. It fails entirely to give historical perspective, objective references, or even evidence of notability. It isn't even clear how much of this movement existed prior to 2002, and whether these Messianic claims were made during Shahi's lifetime, or if they are simply a result of religious hysteria following his disappearance and/or death.

The article badly needs to be pruned of primary sources, and put on whatever reliable sources we can find. I have severe doubts on the overall notability of this. I find one single google news hit for "Gohar Shahi",[1] about a case of 55 Pakistani adherents of this "minority sect" who burned their passports and propose their adherence to Goharism as grounds for political asylum. It is completely unclear how many adherents this movement has, and whether its "international" aspect is real or an online chimera. --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10 (ten) google books hits for Gohar Shahi. Of these, six are his own publications. Of the remaining four, a single one dates to before his disappearance. It is a brief mention in passing of his conviction by a Sindh court in 2000.[2] This casts very grave doubts on the notability of this topic. The entire "religious movement" appears to be a result of his disappearance. Before 1997, he appears to have been simply a Pakistani preacher of moderate notability. After he "met with Jesus" in 1997, he seems to have scanned on the radar of the religious authorities of Pakistan and he needed to go into exile in 2000, where he "disappeared" the following year.

Most of this article seems to be about the superstitious claims thrown around after this man's disappearance, and not about his biography at all. --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also, all his books are apparently self-published, dumped as pdfs on the internet without publisher or date. Again, highly dubious under WP:NOTE. Anyone can dump pdfs on the internet. --dab (𒁳) 12:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am getting the impression that this man was simply a Sufi preacher active in Pakistan during the 1980s and 1990s. He "disappeared" (or died) in 2001. The entire religion based on him seems to have sprouted after that, touted by Younus AlGohar. This, by analogy, may teach a lot about Paul of Tarsus and the origins of Christianity: the master is gone, now the sidekick can throw around his weight and wallow in the glory of the departed, entering a flurry of publishing all sorts of possible and impossible claims about signs and miracles. --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there is controversy surrounding the whereabouts of Shahi, as a result of which there is a sort of turf war between followers of Shahi. I would assume that the self-published books dumped on the internet in form of pdfs, without any publisher or date, are unauthorised. Though there may be doubts about the globalism of Shahi's movement, it seems to me that there is little doubt over the notability of Shahi himself. The fact that the UNHCR ([3]) and the US Department of State([4]) discuss the situation of Shahi in detail suggests that he is notable on some level. Mostly, it would seem he is notable for the persecution he faced, so perhaps the article should focus more on this aspect. However, in my opinion, information regarding the views of Shahi should remain to give the reader insight as to why Shahi is so opposed by orthodox Muslims in Pakistan. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 02:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RAGS.Newyork.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RAGS.Newyork.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [6][7][8]

As given subject/headline, Anjuman Sarfroshan e Islam (ASI) is not banned in Pakistan. It is registered with Government of Pakistan. Jang News used the word "Kaladam" without any proof and used hypothetical sentences. There is no difference among the family of His Holiness Riaz Ahmad Gohar Shahi and central command of ASI. A number of protests has been arranged accompanied with family members to arrest the accused culprits. ASI has been setup and organized by His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi while Mahdi Foundation came into existence in order to destroy the cause of His Holiness. The proof has been given on the front page of official website of ASI. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohar6692 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the archived urls and they all seem to be working fine, and they are relevant to the subject - so I've changed the Sourcecheck parameters to true. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ www.asipak.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi&oldid=713323124"