Talk:Succession to the 52nd Dai al-Mutlaq/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contradictions

The former Syedna — Syedna Taher Saifuddin — died of cardiac arrest at Saifee Mahal, his residence at Malabar Hill, on January 17 2014. Soon after his death disputes started over who was the next Sydena. While his second son Mohammed Burhanuddin organised a missaq in February 2014 and declared him as the new Sydena, his half brother Khuzaima Qutubuddin also followed the same path and declared himself as the Syedna of the community.

“Syedna Taher Saifuddin became the spiritual leader of our community in 1965 at an age of 53. Me father was the youngest of 11 siblings of the Syedna and he was appointed as the mazoon - the deputy spiritual leader and was announced as his successors. But after the former Sydena suffered a stroke in 2011 his second son brought him in public and declared himself as the next Syedna. The former Syedna was not in a position to speak after the stroke,” said Aziz.

this is the quote from the link given by summichum where the next paragraph contradicts the above one.It was not syedna taher saifuddin but his son Syedna Mohammed burhanuddin who died of cardiac arrest in malabar hill on january 17 2014. further his second son was syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin, not Syedna Mohammed burhanuddin. further it was not Syedna taher saifuddin but syedna mohammed burhanuddin who bacame spiritual leader in 1965 and appointed his half brother khuzaima qutbuddin as mazoon. This article seems to be poorly written. suprisingly summichum uses it as his source.Rukn950 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I know there are errata mistakes which are actually common in journalism , even TOI many times does it and thats why they publish an errata later, anyways the mistake has nothing to do with the topic , which I have independently sourced with other referene from JOnah blanks, one naming errata does not mean that the entire article is wrong, you have a COI hence you object and bring irrelevant issues which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Summichum (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

the credibility of this article is in question. this is not minor errata. and how can it be regarded as reliable source as the statement is given by the party directly concerned by the issue and not third party source.Rukn950 (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand by the remark of summichum,what COI have I shown here? and why is the issue irrelevant? and why is it that any time I edit these article summichum comes out with a gun? accusing me with COI and POV ? Rukn950 (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Source linking 15 century event to current crisis

@Qwertyus:

The following link connects it and it was cited too. Also there are some errata mistakes in this article but nevertheless it links hence not my original research but the news reporter. Summichum (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the link is still strenuous. It seems to be evoked by the source for dramatic effect; there's no serious attempt at a historical comparison of the two cases and the circumstances. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that some journalist draws a parallel between the two events. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyus: So should I incorporate it as it does link it, infact the very headline draws a comparison?Summichum (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I would personally not include this. As I said, it seems to be included for dramatic effect, and we already have too much dramatic effect on this page. If you want to draw a historical comparison (a good idea in itself), wait until a historian picks this up and publishes a real study about it. Journalists are trained to report on current affairs, they're not necessarily good sources for stuff that happened centuries ago. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ok but the link is regarding this controversy and its better to incorporate it in the article , and I dont see any policies which it violates AFAIU, hence it could be incorporated by me if you dont have an objection Summichum (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I object. I don't see this link as appropriate enough to be used as reference. this article is regarding the "53rd syedna controversy." so its irrelevant to this.Rukn950 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You reason is not convincing besides you have a COI. It is very much relevant to the article.Summichum (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User ruqn has been previously reported at COI noticeboard and was very active until his sockpuppetry was revealed and then blocked, anyways he shows more restraint and is relatively less aggressive then Md iet., his blind POV was reported on COI noticeboard which culminated in a block in a sock case have multiple accounts to maliciously advertise for one of the claimants, I request you to intervene on Mufaddal Saifuddin page as I have reported edit war and cited content was removed which I can't revert due to limitation of 3RR.Summichum (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been noticing that for quite a time you user:summichum, have been blaming me for COI and POV. and me being block for soc puppet. I may be blocked but so were you for Sock-puppet and edit war. lets not play this blame game and try to discredit each other and act more maturely. hope you agree.Rukn950 (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Admin Bjelleklang has given sound advice while declining your and mine editwar notices.[1] its better to follow that.Rukn950 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Before getting to any conclusion and ignoring suggestion from other editors summichum went ahead and added the issue under discussion [2] to the article.Is it OK to assume ownership of the article?Rukn950 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This issue is already addressed in its appropriate place [3]Rukn950 (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is my humble suggestion and being fair, that we vote on this issue with the vote obtaining majority of At-least 60% Rukn950 (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Question: Do we need to keep this "Source linking 15 century event to current crisis" on this article?

Vote

1. no Rukn950 (talk)

Voting is not how we normally establish consensus. I suggest you try to get a WP:THIRDOPINION instead. (This article could do with more input from uninvolved editors anyway.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, I have done the same Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Please advice if its appropriate. 11:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) I removed this from the third opinion noticeboard because it is a dispute between more than two editors. Normally I would suggest bringing this to WP:DRN, but if it's true that this discussion is already going on somewhere else, I would advise against that and instead just continue the discussion there. (SN: Rukn950, Qwertyus is right about Wikipedia not using voting to establish consensus.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

References

DONT REMOVE THE TAG WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Lots of previous discussion has been done but not concluded. please don't try to assume ownership of the article.Rukn950 (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC) summichum It is not necessary that you belong to any committee but your edits seems that you are closely associated with the subject.Rukn950 (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the information is easily availaible online hence edits dont reflect COI , I have also found that the community has its own website http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1 which archives all bohra related issues making it easy for a researcher to find pointers for further research.This user was earlier reported at COI noticeboard , has a strong COI for bohra articles. And accuses others of COI although not associated with it. The user has himself claimed he is DB and has studied from some major propaganda institute of DB . The article does not have COI as was discussed by many , no 3rd party editors put the COI tag , this article has been also graded as CLASS C and the reviewer did not find any COI. The user has been suffciently warned against this in past.Summichum (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I have also found that the community has its own website http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1 which archives all bohra related issues making it easy for a researcher to find pointers for further research.

the above website cannot be considered as reliable source. And I would request user summichum to read 'CLASS C' grade and what it means.Rukn950 (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I would like to add that Many references given by the summichum seems to be cherry-picked.and has question of reliabilty.Rukn950 (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Concerns

Given below are some of the issues that has to be addressed.Rukn950 (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• It was established previously that Aziz Ahmedi satement was a personal comments and cannot be used as a source.

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

• Since the vedio was removed due to copyright issue from Youtube, It cannot be used as references.Are YouTube videos except-able in Wikipedia? and what is the relevance of mentioning that on this article?

Ceremony video "After Burhanuddin suffered a debilitating stroke in London, a ceremony was organized by Mufaddal Saifuddin and his brothers to declare himself as the Dā'ī. The entire ceremony was recorded in 2011, showing that Burhanuddin could neither speak nor move owing to his stroke and that Mufaddal was never pronounced successor in the ceremony by Burhanuddin . This video was posted by Qutbuddin on YouTube, but then removed after followers of Mufaddal claimed it infringed on their copyrights being the owner of the recorded video."

• There are reliability issue of the survey and its under discussion

An online survey among the Dawoodi Bohra community revealed that only one fifth of the Dawoodi Bohras support the succession of Mufaddal saifuddin and a little less than one fifth support the half brother Khuzaima as the rightful successor [4]. A cover story on the Bohra survey revealed that most Bohras (46%) support Khuzaima over Mufaddal and many are in the community due to due to fear and force [5]

• 'Azad' is community newsletter and hence cannot be used as reference.

The Progressive Dawoodi Bohra took a neutral stance in wake of the succession controversy, citing dubious claims of both the would-be successors and the wealth accumulated by the late Syedna's family. The Progressives' Central Board warned the claimants that they would be "consigned to the dustbins of history" if they do not adapt and act more fairly.[33][41]

• The relevance of 1561 link to this article.

Such a situation was initiated in 1591 when the 26th Syedna – Dawood Burhanuddin – died. A spat broke out between the two claimants and a case was filed at the Royal Court of Akbar by the claimant Dawood travelling all the way to Delhi from Gujarat while Sulaiman stayed put in Gujarat.[23] The Mughal court declared that Dawood bin Qutubshah as the new Syedna but the other claimant Sulaiman bin Hasan eventually split into what is now known as Sulaymani Bohra.[24] Later a deputy leader in Yemen and Grandson of a previous Dai discovered documents showing that Sulaiman bin Hasan was the official successor with the seal of the previous Dai on the document, this was later rejected by Dawoodis claiming forgery[23]

Firstly all the above concerns are baseless and invalid and only reflects a purposeful lack of knowledge Wiki policies , to give an example your very first concern on excluding Aziz Mushabber Ahmadi, The former Chief Justice of India quote is baseless as multiple news sources recorded this statement of an influential person WP:DUE. Most of your other concerns are on similar lines. Secondly no other editor except sockpuppets of Mdiet and yourself who are minority followers of Muffaddal seem to find a problem. Due to your strong bias and COI you want to use wiki as a propoganda tool as how Mdiet did by filling Wikipedia with many of insignificant "Dais" who are as insignificant as popes of as the Catholic Verulian sect of eastern orthodox Christianity.Summichum (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr Summichum I am just inviting you to a healthy discussion. I was addressing my concern. no need to be aggressive.Rukn950 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I also request other editors to shed some light here.Rukn950 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Summichum is inconsistent in saying

The former Chief Justice of India quote is baseless as multiple news sources recorded this statement of an influential person WP:DUE.

and opposed similar statement as in article Dawoodi BohraRukn950 (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Summichum Kindly refrain from removing the tag yourself. As you had accepted (Editwar Noticeboard)[[4]] that you are the major contributor.Rukn950 (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Survey + NPOV violation

In Special:Diff/636152233, Summichum removed a reference to the Indian Express article that establishes majority support for Mufaddal Saifuddin, replacing it with a paragraph that extrapolates the survey results discussed earlier to the entire Dawoodi Bohra community.

Since both sources used for the survey results establish shortcomings in the survey's setup, we can't just claim it "reveals" anything. I think the removal of a source that makes the opposite conclusion, even if not backed by figures, is an NPOV violation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

QVVERTYVS The reference to indian express is still present ,and the paper's unsubstantiated statement is contradicted by survey results(I agree survey may have some flaws which are difficult to avoid for any survey), in the same line in that news paper ;indian express it also states that the faction supporting Khuzema calls themselves Qutbi bohra which we know is a wrong allegation , as all the suites , notices and official declaration are using name "dawoodi" bohra. This is an attempt to divorce the faction and sideline them by giving them sectarian names to get a legal advantage.

also see the following official notice, no where it mentions qutbi bohra:

fatemidawat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/press-statement-april2014.pdf

Similarly it may seem that majority is with Mufaddal , because force , boycott and initimidation tactics(as mentioned in the article) were used by him to subdue his subjects, a real picture can only come if a stronger anonymized survey is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs)

But we don't have a better survey, so stick to the sources. I'll add it back in when I find the time. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with user QVVERTYVS on this matter. The information regarding which agency took that survey is not given, just a vague name of some farida. and then there are no documented result. It may be OK for journalism, but to state it as fact, needs to be more augmented. therefore I suggest altogether removing this topic of Survey. Rukn950 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

The survey, done by an unknown source, only samples 399 individuals and exptrapolates the results to the enitre Dawoodi Bohra community of over 1 million. Further, no confidence interval is established for the given figures (which is a standard practice in any scientifically accurate survey). See Sample_size_determination. Hence this section should be removed form the article immediately. Aftab104 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

False Survey Deleted

I have deleted the false survey reports. It is clear, that more than 99% of dawoodi bohras support Mufaddal Saifuddin.

Please see this VIDEO which clearly proves support to Mufaddal Saifuddin.(Jump to 2:20)

Where is the proof of Khuzaima Qutbuddin support ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramiericson (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)