Talk:Dawoodi Bohra

POV tag

I've added a POV tag to the article as I feel it's been highly edited by adherents pushing a very pro perspective. The language in the lead " Dawoodi Bohra communities are united by a set of centuries-old principles: an unwavering commitment to the faith; being law-abiding citizens and developing a genuine love for the country in which they live; a belief in the value of society, education, hard work and equal rights; engagement with other faiths; and a responsibility to care for the environment and all creatures that dwell within it." shows the lack of encyclopediac language. The education section needs a serious pass to cut down on unsourced claims, reduce some of the puffery and bring the tone closer to an encyclopedia. One sign is the use of primary sources in the article, there's more than really should be in the article. If the only source for something is the organization itself, especially if at any level of detail, is questionable. Ravensfire (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Ravensfire: Can you (or whoever is reading) re-review the article for cn and npov tags? I've sourced most text, tagged it with inline citation-needed where I couldn't, removed wp:soapbox and wp:advocacy content, reworded wp:fancruft. Though, the article still cites primary source in thedawoodibohras.com, it is only because these turn up like clock-work in online searches. That said, this article could very well be further expanded and third-party sourced from Jonah Blank's Mullahs on the Mainframe, Farhad Daftary's A Modern History of the Ismailis, Shibani Roy's The Dawoodi Bohras: An Anthropological Perspective, Abdulhussen's Gulzare Daudi for the Bohras of India, Zeynap Kayamaly's The Dawoodi Bohra Community and the Fatemid Heritage and other such books. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to when I've got a chance, but it could be a week or more depending on work and outside activities. Ravensfire (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ravensfire:: Been over 24 months now and article has substantial edits by now. I'd implore you to consider removing the NPOV tag. Personally, I don't see a NPOV warranted on the entire article. If you think otherwise, can you point to what major areas need to be addressed? Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: if you're not busy, can you please re-review the article tags? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Per [[WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_105#NPOV_tag_on_Dawoodi_Bohra|]], intend to relegate the NPOV tag to SOAPBOX for just the section flagged in that discussion. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources

Ravensfire Per WP:PRIMARY A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. I see 56 places where thedawaoodibohras.com is used. Sometimes to support a single statement (probably bordering on WP:CITEOVERKILL). Can you please point out why Primary sources, in the context they're used are problematic for the integrity of this article (as in, "original research" level problems)?

Also, in some places, primary source is in addition to a secondary or a tertiary source, while in others thedawoodibohras.com is simply presented as a lay-archive lay-summary of what was published in other sources (usually news agencies).

In other places, thedawoodibohras.com is used for WP:ABOUTSELF (like their culture / tradition / religious practices, for example), which is fine? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar, it's being used a LOT. When primary sources are the only source of information, some thoughts about the overall relevance are needed. ABOUTSELF also mentions the material not being "unduly self-serving". Basic facts are one thing. "there's a marked emphasis on gender equality, environmental activism, and philanthropy." - that's not a basic fact, that's the POV of the group, stated in Wikipedia's voice, sourced to the group. That's getting into problematic territory. Ravensfire (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You say a "lot" but cite only one example where you found use of primary-source, thedawoodibohras.com problematic. The first part of that sentence is Predominantly informed by the Fatimid philosophy and theology,... followed by a citation to their website which indeed confirms both their limit (that is, as informed by the Fatimid theology) and reason (Fatimid philosophy) to place emphasis on philanthropy, equality, and environmental activism.

What appears as "lot" is infact, like pointed above, mostly used to support straight-foward statement of facts. Oft times, also supported by secondary and tertiary sources. Is that not the case? I can go through all 56 thedawoodibohras.comcitations and lay them out here to justify why they were used but that'd be super time-consuming and unproductive. If you agree to list out the problematic first-party citations (in your capacity as a seasoned Wikipedian) that needs secondary / tertiary sources, then other editors (like me who'd like to make this article "encyclopedic") can jump in to help fix those, without having to worry about replacing most, if not all, first-party citations. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar, right now, I don't have the time to go through every single cite and look for issues. Hence the tag - 56 times is frankly too many times for a primary source to be used in an article. If something is supported by a secondary source, then remove the primary - Wikipedia strongly prefers the use of secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ravensfire You may be making the mistake of judging it on quantity, whereas the policy calls for judging them within a context ("quality") with a leeway for acceptable use. I'd rather the tag be removed until the problematic citations be identified (either by you, or whoever has got time)? In the mean while, I'll remove thedawoodibohras.com citations wherever there are also secondary and tertiary sources present. Though, I must say, thedawoodibohras.com lends itself to "easy" verification than books (some, if not all, of which are out of print). Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Murtaza.aliakbar, I've removed the tag and will highlight areas I'm concerned about. I am going to raise this at a noticeboard (either RSN or NPOV) and will tag you when it's up there. This doesn't sit right with me and I want some outside eyes to review the use of primary sources here. Ravensfire (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ravensfire Makes sense, especially since your hands are full. Given the work you've already put it in, it is only fair you'd seek RfCs. Anyways, I've removed ~25 redundant 1p thedawoodibohras.com refs (for which 2p / 3p sources existed already in the article. I count about 25 thedawoodibohras.com refs of the 203 in total (~10%). 12 of which are in just two sections: Masjid and Dawoodi Bohra#Muharram. Easier now to gauge which 1p aren't acceptable? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Cite errors

The refs jblankinterview and yusuf2017 were both removed in this edit on the 24th of September. However both were still in use, and so are causing cite errors.

In the Muharram section of the article the first instance of this:

{{r|jblankinterview}}

should be replaced with this:

<ref name=jblankinterview>{{cite web|url=https://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/056767in.html |title=An interview with Jonah Blank, author of Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity among the Daudi Bohras |publisher=University of Chicago |access-date=23 October 2019 |archive-date=27 March 2014 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140327071242/http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/056767in.html}}</ref>

In the Masjid section of the article the first instance of this:

{{r|yusuf2017}}

should be replaced with this:

<ref name=yusuf2017>{{Cite book|url=https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UNDPLKA-People_of_Sri_Lanka.pdf |author1=Yusuf Mamujee |title=People of Sri Lanka |chapter=The Dawoodi Bohras of Sri Lanka |editor1=S. Pathmanathan |editor2=B. A. Hussainmiya |editor3=Malani Endagama |editor4=Vajira Narampanawa |editor5=Kalinga Tudor Silva |year=2017 |work=Ministry of National Coexistence, Dialogue and Official Languages, [[Government of Sri Lanka]] |isbn=9789557537030 |via=reliefweb.int |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200618104345/https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UNDPLKA-People_of_Sri_Lanka.pdf |archive-date=18 June 2020}}</ref>

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Gusool ne list

Gusool 94.128.228.210 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

Add Da'a'im al-Islam to "Scriptures" in the Infobox. This book compiles all the religious laws and commandments Bohras have to follow. 152.37.71.181 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)