Jump to content

Talk:Syed Ali Shah Geelani

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

Kautilya3 is reverting edits

[edit]

User:Kautilya3 has taken it upon himself to decide what goes in and what stays out. When I added multiple details about Geelani's death, including how he died, the restrictions in Kashmir after his death, his family alleging they weren't allowed, being booked, he removed everything I added claiming it's not WP:DUE. And these edits had certainly taken a lot of my time to add.

Despite multiple news sources covering all the things I've mentioned somehow it isn't due. Now I know we are WP:NOTNEWS, but surely not everything I added is going to be undue? This is a disruptive behavior and he should not start declaring what's due or undue on his own and reverting everything a person adds. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, I have asked you to condense appropriately. This is an encyclopedia, a biography page meant to cover his entire life, not a newspaper or a memorial. He died of natural causes, period. The details of illnesses don't belong in an encyclopedia unless they were unusual in some way. As for government restrictions after his death, again a sentence or two should do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed but what's the guarantee you won't revert me again? And that's a contradictory statement, where you first say what I added is undue and then said I could add it as condensed which means it is DUE. All I added is relevant news about his death. We might not be news but we do go by what's significantly covered. And also how and when he died. That's important.
I can remove things like names of politicians or Pakistan consoling his death. But as for restrictions, all I added are four lines. What's the problem? The allegations concerning forcible removal of his body are notable. Stop being disruptive and don't revert every edit. You didn't make any effort on the article itself when you reverted me yet you feel can tell others what to do. Anyway no one gave you the right to. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guarantee of anything. We all learn by doing. If you are worried about reverts, you can propose your content here and reach CONSENSUS before inserting it into the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've condensed it significantly now like you requested. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Recently there have been two conflicting requests at WP:RMTR to move the page: one by Pyaarkarona (to Ali Shah Geelani) and one by 130.208.182.103 to move it back to Syed Ali Shah Geelani, stating that literally every single source including American and British sources include Syed. I do not have an opinion either way, just returned to status quo in the administrative capacity. Should anyone want to proceed, please open a formal WP:RM so that we solicit broader opinion and evidence on the matter. Thank you. No such user (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user:the page was moved by an administrator, i dont think you should be reverting his move, so please first place the page title where the administrator had put, then we will start a RM discussion. Pyaarkarona (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pyaarkarona it was moved by Anthony Appleyard on your explicit request because you claimed it was uncontroversial. Since someone else requested moving it back (with a reasonable explanation), it apparently is controversial, and the proper procedure is to move it back to the previous state. Please open a regular WP:RM request, which is expressly designed to allow a structured discussion among multiple editors. Administrators are not police on Wikipedia. No such user (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user: i dont know why i feel WP:NPOV is violated here, see an ip address reuqest to revert the name change in just 4 minutes of change, the ip address is of iceland, i dont how the people of iceland have interest in a figure, totally centric to kashmir, india and pakistan. then in another 2-3 minutes the ip address's sham request got acceptance, dont you feel something is wrong here, i have cited three policies in my reason of move, and a random ip address just say a random line literally every single source including American and British sources include Syed without citing anything, how can you take that this random line as proof/reference, knowing that this ip user hasn't even quoted a single policy or any article, this clearly shows you have some vested interest here, this is just my feeling, i think i have to investigate or a admin intervention is needed here, what say No such user, see if you have any vested interest, then please leave by obeying to WP:NPOV, if you dont have any vested interest and my whole assumption is just a co-incident the feel free to tell me. Pyaarkarona (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have not quoted a single reliable source yourself when you asked for move of this article. Your appeals to Wikipedia policies do not mean that you understood them. And please stop this conspiracy theory: have you even tried https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ali%20Shah%20Geelani%22 : the IP's statement that literally every single source including American and British sources include Syed" is true. No such user (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 October 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 14:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Shah Geelani → Ali Shah Geelani – Current title violates WP:TITLESINTITLES, WP:NPOV, MOS:HONORIFICs and also proposed name is valid under WP:COMMONNAME. Pyaarkarona (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:@No such user:i just can't understand how a very "senior" editor like you can put this type of argument, you clearly have this idea that in this case of honorific titles you can find many web article which are using "syed" word, and i can also find many article without "syed" so how can this be a reliable reference, please see wikipedia's own article Syed Ali (name) it clearly says: The Arabic meaning of Syed is noble one. Syed's are the most honourable, respected, educated and high ranking individuals among muslims. In these countries, the title "Syed", an honorific that denotes descent from Muhammad, is the most common English spelling of the Arabic term Sayyid (سيد)syed is totally a honorific title and MOS:HONORIFICs apply here. Pyaarkarona (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And where did you get the idea that his WP:COMMONNAME is "Ali Shah Geelani"? You haven't produced a single source to that effect, let alone "many". All major news outlets refer to him as "Syed Ali Shah Geelani" or "Syed Ali Geelani". That includes all the news from India, the country whose policies he opposed, which would probably be the first to exclude honorifics. No such user (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user:by reading your comment, can i conclude that you are saying "Shah" is honorific title and proposed title should be changed to "syed Ali Geelani"?? Pyaarkarona (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Syed" and "Shah" are honorary titles, but in some part of India and Pakistan, both names are part of name. For example, "Syed" is a part of Geelani's name not honorific. How did you come to know that "Syed" Ali Shah Geelani violates WP:TITLESINTITLES, WP:NPOV, MOS:HONORIFICs? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears:i have explained half of your question above and rest here: can you prove that "syed" is a part of his name not honorific title??? and ya if according to both of you TheBirdsShedTears and No such user, if you both think that "shah" is the honorific title then please let me know i will change the request to "Syed Ali Geelani" or "Ali Geelani" as per consensus here, but ya please just remember to follow WP:NPOV here, because many people have vested interest in this topic, so kindly dont forget to follow WP:NPOV. Pyaarkarona (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyaarkarona, You move request seems disobeying WP:COMMON. Try to search Wikipedia and you will find many people with "Syed". See also Sayyid (name) and this. A question: How many mainstream news sources are supporting your move request? It seems "Syed Ali Geelani" or "Ali Geelani" is unknown to sources as well as general public as no body knows about "Syed Ali Geelani" or "Ali Geelani". Every source knows him as Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Your request seems opposing WP:COMMON. Also, you haven't answered why you think it violates WP:TITLESINTITLES, WP:NPOV, MOS:HONORIFICs? Just saying i have explained half of your question above and rest here: do not convince me.

WP:TITLESINTITLES: Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Professor", etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien, Mahatma Gandhi). ​

"Syed" is neither Her Majesty, or His Holiness, His Excellency, Sir, Professor, Madam, etc., but it is a given name used by some families in India and Pakistan. However, if you think "Syed" is never used as a given name in India and Pakistan, then you should also read MOS:HONORIFIC as it reads Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa. Please see WP:NPOVTITLE. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My changes

[edit]

I've made changes to the article. Geelani was never chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, when Hurriyat split Mohammad Abbas Ansari was the chairman [1].

In addition, Geelani quit as chairman of his Tehreek-e-Hurriyat faction in March 2018 and appointed Ashraf Sehrai in his place, while still de-facto running that party. [2] [3]

Sehrai would be elected as the permanent chairman in August 2018. [4] [5]

Any reports claiming Geelani was chairman of TeH up until 2020 are wrong and contrary to reality. [6] Drokanus (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But he headed the "Geelani faction" of the APHC, right? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think your edits are good. Thanks for fixing! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right, I made a mistake and misinterpreted the sources. That has been fixed. Drokanus (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Bias Due to Hindutva Revivalist Influence

[edit]

The article appears to be influenced by Hindutva revivalist views, which may compromise its neutrality and balance. A revision is needed to ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and represents diverse perspectives fairly. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description of Syed Ali Shah Geelani as the "father of the Kashmiri jihad" was revised for neutrality. This term originates from partisan sources, such as a former RAW officer and some Indian media outlets, which reflect a specific national perspective. It lacks broad scholarly or international consensus and uses politically charged language that risks bias. To align with Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, the claim has been attributed to its sources and balanced with alternative perspectives, ensuring a fair and accurate portrayal. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syed_Ali_Shah_Geelani&oldid=1258193369"