Talk:Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar

Facts

Sheik Kanthapuram A.P.Aboobacker Musliar Bin Ahmed islamic scholar in India and abroad. He is the first kerala muslim scholar who supported communism, His vew comes true for other some leaders after many years. That reveals his forcast about all things related to Humanity especially to Sunni Muslims—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The above statement is just your point of view. Wiki is for facts. Please see the guidelines for Wiki Biography and also for Wiki Talkpage. Please provide solid facts in which way, Kanthapuram has brought renaissance among Sunni Muslims. The above comment in the talk page itself is very cryptic. Forecasts about humanity -? what way? Zencv (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I will explain...rennaisance.

Education is the foundation of renaissance.He already gave and use to give free education with full stay,food,and every thing free of course.At present 25,000 students studies in his main center markaz alone.He has hundreds of other institutes also..Now lot of engineers including me,lot of doctors ,scientists,scholars,teachers,so and so is there with his effort.This is how he raised the sunni muslims to glory .This is the renaissance.if you want more evidences,i will give for verificartion,I can give BBC video as proof for his contributions in charity.

also,some vahhabis says the sunnis are doing shirk which is a foolishness,Please be aware that vahhabis are less than 1 percentage of world muslim population...my mail id is vasikhali@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasikhali (talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Vasikhali (talk · contribs), your content is WP:Editorializing and unsourced. Therefore, you should not be adding it. Do review the WP:Verifiability policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=58111&d=27&m=1&y=2005&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom, http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=76098&d=11&m=1&y=2006 and http://www.ssfmalappuram.com/news/default.asp?id=english. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of linkage with Chekannur Maulavi's murder

Isn't it a very famous allegation? How come it's not mentioned here? I can provide citations. Mehfoos (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added that section. He was 10th accused in that murder but was acquitted GreenOrca (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments against women and NPOV check

Kanthapuram is 'famous' for making highly conservative remarks about women,like women shouldn't travel. In one instance, a group of Muslim women even burnt his effigy .. I dont think wiki page is reflecting all of this ..

GreenOrca (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that burning in effigy? We'll need reliable sources to add such content. Huon (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have added the same with sources. GreenOrca (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing/ Vandalism

This article has been subjected to several acts of whitewashing/vandalism. Controversial remarks by him was added with many references, however the references and the section has been removed. This has happened multiple times. Please do not allow deletion of references.

GreenOrca (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please block the content killers

Hi, Admins please block these users from editing this page User:Nashar.Elaf, User:Vasikhali - WikiRescuer (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir..

This is vasikh ali.

I havent writen any thing other than facts.

See this Nashar.Elaf is a vahhabi.means mujahid.,,...Mujahid constitutes less than 4% of muslims in kerala.and less than 1% in the world. They alleges that rest of 96 % in kerala is doing shirk.As a part of it they allege the same to Mr.Kanthapuram also.shirk means having more than 1 god.This is baseless allegation.Inorder to keep the trust and honesty of Wikipedia,I request the support from the authority.You can verify the matter by any method.Please consider that Nashar.Elaff's arguement sounds less than 4 out of hundred.Stressing the word ,You can verify it .

    .And a request to nashar,Please dont consider this platform to spit baseless allegations.and please remember, i am not doing the same in your leaders page,because that is not our culture..Please dont force me to do like that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasikhali (talk • contribs) 08:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 

The same one with different address creates the problems again.Dear friend please be aware that once its informed to the media center Calicut,Case will be registered against you for cyber crime or cyber bullying.Please dont make a chance for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasikhali (talk • contribs) 05:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Now i am cleanup the page, i hope that you will continue to favor us with your support • ArtsRescuer 19:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You did which is not right..atleast you can contact the media cell markaz.bt you didnt.

See he said during a speech,only women can deliver the children.he was explaining what the difference btwn male and female.bt some medias reported like he said that women can only deliver the children..later the medias apologized him..this is happaned.what you said is wrong..35 million keralaites know it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasikhali (talk • contribs) 05:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please cite your source. Wikipedia only reports what has been already reported. And STOP your legal threats. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

you didnt ask the citation when some fellows wrote the lie.but now when i write the truth you need it...I dont have any videos in my hand to explain it to you.but its the truth.I heared the speech...Informing is my duty.Just did that.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasikhali (talk • contribs) 07:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You have not provided citations. In Wikipedia it all boils down to citations. The material I added had citations. If you cannot provide citations, please do not remove it from the article. If you edit war, you will be blocked from editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Very excessive photo gallery

I have removed the excessive photo gallery because it was disproportionate to the size and importance of the article; there were copyright issues with the photos; and there were already three decent photos, which is ample. George Custer's Sabre 06:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Kanthapuram and Mufti Post

He is not elected as the Grand Mufti of India, Grand Mufti Elected as Misbahi Not AP Aboobacker Musliar.

If he is elected kindly publish an appointment letter from the authority for selecting the Grand Mufti of India.

Actually he himself announced as the Grand Mufti of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanjikkuzhi (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for your claim. As far as I can see from the sources, he was made Mufti jointly by all major Sunni associations of India. Anyway I am not sure whether he was made the Grand Mufti of India as The Times of India reports or just of Sunni Muslims as The Hindu reports. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s very clear that all of the above editors and every Sunni Muslim organizations are approving that the previous Grand Mufti of India is Mr.Akhtar Raza Khan and he passed away recently on 20 July 2018.

Also Deputy Grand Mufti of India is Huzoor Muhad’dith e Kabeer Hazrat Allama Zia ul Mustafa Qaadiri Amjadi who is bearing his post from the period of Mr.Akhtar Raza Khan itself.

The authority who selected Mr.Akhtar Raza Khan as Grand Mufti and Mr.Zia ul Mustafa as Deputy Grand Mufti don’t know about the selection of this Kanthapuram A.P. Abubacker Musliyar as Grand Mufti.

Also they didn’t select anyone to that post and they are going to select a new person to that position.

You can get the complete history of Grand Muftis of India from the page Grand Mufti of India

If you are saying Kanthapuram is the Grand Mufti then you should show me at least an appointment letter from the authorities whoever elected the previous Grand Mufti as well.

It’s not a subject to play with but it’s a very critical subject Which is related to the whole Sunni Muslims in the Country.

(Kanjikkuzhi (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC))

No, I don't have to show you any appointment letter to include this detail in Wikipedia. If all mainstream media did report his election to the post, then that's reliable enough. Actually it is you who has to show some verifiable proof to prove your claims. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It is very clear that you are misguiding the people by spreading a false information through the wikipedia, it will badly affect the credibility of wikipedia as well. Evidences and sources should be published and you should answer for the questions asked in the discussions to show the credibility of your edit. Otherwise, what is the need of discussion and talk page in the wikipedia. Therefore, I am waiting for a proper reply from you for my above question to show an appointment letter for the same.

Otherwise I should ask the admins to remove these type of false information from this page.

(Kanjikkuzhi (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC))

As I said before, I don't have to give you any other source when all major media has reported his election to the position. And no administrator can or will remove data supported by credible sources. If you have any issues with the reliably sourced information included in the article, it is you who has to bring a credible source proving your claim. Now don't edit war in the page, instead bring a credible source for what you say. Then we can think of adding a sentence that his election to the post is contested. But the news of his election still stays. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s very clear that you are editing some of my edits regarding the Deputy Grand Mufti of India with reliable sources to justify your edit is correct.

So, if you have any doubts or arguments with my edits kindly submit the proof here. We can discuss on the same.

(Kanjikkuzhi (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC))

The reference you provided in the page Deputy Grand Mufti of India did not even have a mention of Deputy Grand Mufti of India. The page easily qualifies for deletion as it does not have any reliable references to establish notability. I did not make any changes to the page but just added tags to improve the references. And there is nothing in it to do with my edits in this page. See, my edits are not any politically or religiously inclined. Whoever the Mufti is I don't have anything to care. I read the news of Mr. Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar's election in newspaper and came here just to add that information when I noticed all this edit war and got myself involved.

For you to see the proofs, here they are:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/kanthapuram-grand-mufti-of-sunnis-in-india/article26379629.ece

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/kanthapuram-selected-grand-mufti-of-india/articleshow/68175547.cms

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/kanthapuram-elected-as-new-grand-mufti-religion-1.3599882

Now please stop edit warring in the page and please cite the sources for your claim. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

But, you are playing with a very critical subject which will affect the whole Sunni Muslims from India. Because, Grand Mufti Post is a very important post for which a leader who have the support of only a minor group of Sunni Muslims can’t even imagine to reach that position. If you want to proceed legally to prove this, we can proceed with this. No issues on that.

(Kanjikkuzhi (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC))

It does not matter whether it is a critical subject or not. Information as reported by reliable sources are welcome in Wikipedia. As I said many times earlier, if your claim has to be included, you need to substantiate it with credible sources. Not just repeating that your opinion is this or you believe so etc. I don't think there is any point in prolonging this discussion. You are still not willing to provide any references for your claim. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Now the Wikipedia is not any authorized way of knowledge. While any one edit as grand multi of India through the paid news. And even editing is disabled by some editors ....While the fact is that he is not grand multi...grand multi of India is the son of Azkaban ,Asjad raza khan qadiri Barelvi. Victorydigital (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Barelvi scholars selected Azjad Raza Khan Brelvi as Qali Qulath(chief qazi of barelvi sharif) , not as Grand Mufti of India. The position Grand mufti of India belongs to Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musliyar (talk) 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope they had even issued a circular confirming that Asjad Raza Khan Qadri is conferred with all the titles that his respected father held previously Metre per second (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I could provide sources including audio clips, proving this, if there any need arises... Most importantly all the articles which refer this malignant as the Mufti should ne cleaned and Mufti Asjad Raza Khan should be added with proper hierarchy and tags, thereby restoring Wiki's authenticity... Metre per second (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

am also hoping thiz content,and disagree with grand mufthi of india Abdulsalamsvnr (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly contest the revision (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Kanthapuram_A.P._Aboobacker_Musliyar&oldid=895158964) being reverted by an editor and the assertion that it is vandalism. Any administrators can read and see that what has been written is fair with reference to reputable Indian media outlets such as "The Hindu". Please can an admin/impartial party check these changes. SunniObserver786 (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019

Ap Aboobacker Musliar is not a Grand Mufti of India , Kindly update this --Midhlajc17 (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Þjarkur (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment - Grand Mufti Controversy

My suggestion would be to edit this at the very least so that it says Aboobacker is the Grand Mufti for his followers or Shafi‘i Muslims and a mention of the Grand Mufti controversy in the main article (see my edit that was reverted by another editor). SunniObserver786 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Akhtar Raza Khan was formerly known as the Grand Mufti of India by Barelvi Muslims. Upon his passing, the position was left vacant with no formal announcement on who was to succeed him. On the 24th February 2019, a conference was held in Delhi where it was announced by a singular organisation that Kanthapuram will now be the Grand Mufti of India . This caused a split in India, with the followers and family of Akhtar Raza Khan, as well as other Muslims from Kerala, making a rival announcement that Asjad Raza Khan is actually the Grand Mufti . Some reconciliate the controversy by saying that Asjad Raza Khan is the Grand Mufti for Hanafi Muslims and Aboobacker is the Grand Mufti for Shafi‘i Muslims, as they both follow different versions of Islamic Jurisprudence, while others such as Dr. Bahaudeen Nadwi from his rival faction in Kerala refuse to accept him as Grand Mufti outright

Therefore, it is wrong for this article to assert as fact that Aboobacker is the Grand Mufti of India when it is clearly a hotly disputed position.

My suggestion would be to edit this at the very least so that it says Aboobacker is the Grand Mufti for his followers or Shafi‘i Muslims and a mention of the Grand Mufti controversy in the main article (see my edit that was reverted by another editor). SunniObserver786 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

On the face of it, this makes sense. If there are rival claims, as seems clear and is discussed in this source, all the relevant articles should reflect that. It is problematic that there are so many different users with an apparent conflict of interest, who don't seem interested in discussing the subject and try to use Wikipedia to promote their own version of what is true. --bonadea contributions talk 06:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@SunniObserver786: If you copy an RfC from one page to another, never copy the |rfcid= parameter since this must be unique, and should only be assigned by Legobot (talk · contribs). You have used the same number that was assigned to the RfC at the location that you copied it from, Talk:Grand Mufti of India#Request for comment - Grand Mufti Controversy, and so the RfC listings have become corrupted as a result. I have reset the rfcid in an attempt to trigger Legobot into sorting out the mess. My comments in that RfC hold here as well: it is not a valid WP:RFC but your own opinion; it is neither neutral nor brief. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Comment - Some further direction to authoritative references that discuss whether a controversy exists and, if so, the exact nature of the controversy would be appreciated. I searched English language sources online and did not find much. Controversies regarding leadership of religious groups are not uncommon, regardless of religion or denomination, so I am not surprised to find some indications but did not find enough to suggest a significant controversy. Some sources that did not indicate a controversy did limit their reference to Aboobacker as Grand Mufti for Sunnis in India and/or Barelwi followers.(Summoned by bot)--Rpclod (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Page move to new name

I have reverted the page move. Based on a quick search, it seems most newspapers refer to him as Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar instead of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad [1], [2], [3]. I recommend starting a page move discussion here to get consensus or maybe an RFC.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2019

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar → Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad – This is not a move rationale. I am simply listing it since there was a recent move which I reverted and I believe this would benefit from more input DreamLinker (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Tentative Oppose based on a quick search. Most newspapers refer to him as Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar instead of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad [4], [5], [6].--DreamLinker (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose; "sheikh" is an honorific title and generally, honorific titles should not be used. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why doesn't the lead match the title?

@DreamLinker and HyperGaruda:? Doug Weller talk 11:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller Ideally it should match the title, as Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar is the common name. I guess some of the contributors have changed the content to use the honorific name.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Merging of Page

The following discussion 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.

---

Fatwa of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad on ISIS has no notability itself. It may merged to this page.--Irshadpp (talk) 13:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, I agree with the fact. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

NeutralWeak oppose merge:Neutral: If no objections, if any objections should goto WP:RFCL for close request as might be controversial. It hasn't been 100% obvious to find this discussion but have added discuss= parameter to the page merge templates which should help. If the merge occurs I would hope to see a merge of substance (not a redirect) with proper attributions per WP:MERGETEXT. I have not examined the notability of merge source article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• I note what I see is a good faith !vote not to merge below and while I choose to remain neutral I am very tempted to oppose the merge. I now believe this will need to go to a neutral or WP:RFCL to close for merge; and in that case the redirect should include Template:R with possibilities, R printworth and R from merge.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Nom has contacted me for advice and I have decided to move to weak oppose as I am increasingly concerned a quality merge would be achieved. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Moved my vote to Neutral to be clear that I do not oppose a quality merge and noting GenQuest below is a sort of specialises in merges rather than having any particualr bias as to the subject of the article as far as I am aware. If anyone is doing a merge can they please ensure the date of the fatwa is noted and be are of the various aliases of the subject to ensure content is readily understandable to a neutral not versed in the subject and makes not assumptions about their background knowledge. Thankyou. (PS: My previous sentence makes no sense even to me who wrote it ... probably missed a "not"). Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Disagree, This is the first fatwa against the ISIS. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 02:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment People should not be in too much a of hurry to close. The first person to comment on this was on 4 April. Surely 7 days from the first comment is a more reasonable period than 14 hours. Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1:, I am seeing nothing better in the article proposed to be merged with this. We have completely lost this merge discussion. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Support merge on the grounds of overlap, given that the content on the Fatwa of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad on ISIS is indeed no more substantial than the section summary at Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar#Fatwa against ISIS. It is an important topic, but there is also not much to be said about it. Klbrain (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support as the article is basically a perma-stub. Fatwa of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad on ISIS has little content and can easily be accommodated in the larger article. As it now stands, it's a minor, two or three sentence screed, unlikely to grow much further. Agree with User:Djm-leighpark above regarding saving all reliable content, etc. GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Not a Grand Mufti at whole

I just went through few links where Grand Mufti title is used before his name. But in the same time, it is related that the event was organized under the banner of the predominant Sunni organization in the country, All India Thanzeem Ulamae Islam. This organization completely belongs to Barelwi sect and that no one, prominent scholar from Deobandis or other Muslims living in India, joined the event. His being the Grand Mufti is same as that of Izaz Ali Amrohi, Muhammad Shafi Deobandi or Mahmood Hasan Gangohi. Wikipedia brethren must understand this.

• "Appointment of Two 'Grand Muftis' In India at the Same Time Reeks Of an Internal Conflict and Rivalry within the Indian Muslim Barelwi Leadership". NawageIslam. Retrieved 25 March 2020.

this link shows the internal rivarly of Barelwis. It mentions that According to several national Urdu newspapers dated April 2, Maulana Asjad Raza Khan, son and successor of the late Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan Azhari Miyan, has been appointed as ‘Qazi Al-Quzaat’ (chief Islamic justice) of India. With a consensus of 67 Barelwi ulema and muftis (clerics and jurists), It mentions for Musliyar that Just a month ago, South Indian Barelwi cleric and Sunni leader, Shaikh Abu Bakr Musliyar (Kanthapuram AP Abooabcker) was appointed as the Grand Mufti of India at the Ghareeb Nawaz Peace Conference held at Ramlila Maidan, New Delhi. This appointment took place in an anti-terror Islamic conference organized under the banner of the leading Barelwi organizations in the country including All India Tanzeem Ulama-e-Islam, just a barelwi organization.

• "Kerala's Warring Sunni Groups Now in Tussle Over Appointment of First South Indian as Grand Mufti of Muslims". News18. Retrieved 25 March 2020.

this link also somehow says that he is not the one at whole.

• "Mufti Asjad Raza appointed as supreme leader of Sunni Muslim". Times Headline. Retrieved 25 March 2020.

this is also relevant that Grand Muftis in India are not official elected by state, rather by their followers. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 09:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Authordom: @Irshadpp: Please could you comment on recent edits such as [7]. There are probably reasons for this difference of opinion. They are best resolved on the talk page. Toddy1 (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: @Irshadpp:: Can you please confirm yes or no you are willing to participate in this discussion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, we have to discuss the issues, which I raised here itself earlier.--Irshadpp (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation statement for Title "Sheikh"

check this edit, this is purely a statement of an editor. Looks like original research.--Irshadpp (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1:, there are many violations on MOS:HON in this article.--Irshadpp (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

MOS:HON says: "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." "Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad" is more common in English when referring to this person than "Abubakr Ahmad" without "Sheikh" in front of it. So I can see that there is a tolerably-good case under MOS:HON for Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad. Toddy1 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I am pointing on the citation is a statement of an editor, Stating that it is similar to Sheikh Hasina. In Kerala, followers used to call him Sheikhunaa (Our leader). In routine news will always using these kind of honorific titles.--Irshadpp (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is a mess. The article name is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, but people have been editing it as though the article name were Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad. Given that Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad is the second-most common name for him in English, it is right that that name be used in the 1st sentence of the lede. Thereafter, the article should call him Aboobacker. If people disagree with this, they should use the process at WP:RM for contested moves to change the article title to Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad.

Objecting to the Sheikh on the grounds of MOS:HON is not justified by the wording of the policy. But in any case, unless the article is moved to Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad, it is too confusing to have the article randomly using Aboobacker and Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad. It needs to be consistent.

In the case of people who change name part way through their life, it makes sense to use Margaret Roberts before they got married and Margaret Thatcher afterwards. But that is not the case here - or if it is, it is not explained. Toddy1 (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I can explain what is actual issue is,

• He started his career as Kanthapuram A.P Aboobacker Musliyar
• His field was limited in Kerala, and influence was in Keralites only. That time this name was convenient enough.
• While he tried to expand his institutions all outside kerala, This name Kanthapuram Aboobacker Musliyar became a burden for them as this name includes Kanthapuram & Musliyar which were purely not understandable outside Kerala. Also his arab friends were calling him Aboobacker Ahmed, as his father's name is Ahmad (Arabic custom of naming). In many books he as been mentioned as Aboobacker Ahmad without title of Sheikh (See some examples, 1, 2
• Now after claiming the power of Grand Mufti, totally trying to abolish old name and projecting the Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmad.

--Irshadpp (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Irshadpp: Do you have citations for this? If yes, please could you write a new section in the article explaining his various changes of name. This new section must have citations. Please be careful of WP:OR. What the citations say needs to back up what the article says. (This seems to be a major deficiency of the article.) Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1:, Sure, I have to check the availability of citations.--Irshadpp (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Environmentalist

No where in citations mentioned him as an environmentalist. If there citation mentioning like that we may add it again. Otherwise this may considered as original research--Irshadpp (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Muslim500

This is a ranking of influential Muslim personalities of the world. If there is an entry, it will be just updated in the next year if any changes there. If you compare the data regarding subject, you may find few sentences which is repeated from 2009 to 2020. As 2020 is more comprehensive, we can give a link of that, and mention mention about previous years.--Irshadpp (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement in the lede that has 5 citations but it is not clear that they support much of it

The lede had the following sentence:

He is a notable Muslim scholar, writer, author, Educational revivalist, environmentalist, and peace and interfaith dialogue promoter.

I can see that citation [1] of the above supports "Aboobacker is a leading Indian Islamic scholar" and I can see that it supports "Aboobacker is Chancellor of the Jamia Markazu Ssaquafathi Ssunniyya (Markaz)". But that is it. So "writer, author, Educational revivalist, environmentalist" should be deleted.

Do citations [2] to [5] support the statement that he is a peace and interfaith dialogue promoter? If so, please can someone say how. Or is it that they have been badly placed? Toddy1 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation [4] merely states that Aboobacker is on an Indian national advisory council to oversee the implementation of the Right to Education. The citation should be put somewhere in the article against a statement it supports. Toddy1 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation [3] says:

India: Ahmad, Sheikh Aboobackar

Shaikh Aboobackar Ahmad is the General Secretary of the All India Muslim Scholars Association and founder and Vice Chan- cellor of Jamia Markazu Ssaquafathi Ssunniyya (Sunni Cultural Centre), Karanthur, Kozhikode, Kerala. He is also chief patron of the Sunni Youth Society and General Secretary, Jamiat Ulema (Kerala). He was awarded with the “Shaik Muhiyudheen Abdul Khadar Jeelani Award” in 2009.

So that citation appears misplaced, and should be put somewhere else against statements that it supports. Toddy1 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 07:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This article clearly meets at least one, and possibly up to three, of the criteria for immediate failure; as detailed below, I am going to fail the nomination on that basis.

The first criterion for immediate failure is if an article "is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria." These criteria are that an article is well written; verifiable; broad in its coverage; neutral; stable; and illustrated.

• Although a number of these apply here, the most striking is the lack of breadth of the coverage. The article's subject was born in 1931, and is currently 89 years old. Yet the article picks up with his life as of 2018; the first 87 years of his life are completely omitted other than a few passing references to earlier years in the list of awards. It's as if an article on Donald Trump began in January 2017, and said absolutely nothing else about the rest of his life. Even to the extent the subject's role as Grand Mufti of India is discussed, it's extremely flimsy coverage. His inauguration is mentioned, as are the receptions that followed. But then the article merely says, in broad strokes that he is a "peace and interfaith dialogue promoter" and gives a few of his views on a few different subjects. After reading the article, I still have almost no idea who Musliyar actually is, and what he has done. Given that the article has been heavily edited since being nominated, it's worth noting that the as-nominated version was no better.
• Another good-article criterion, neutrality, is in serious doubt. To the extent the article has a cohesive voice, it seems to be saying that Musliyar is an impressive and respected person. The article is quick to say things like "Minister T. P. Ramakrishnan expressed appreciations to the Grand Mufti for the Government of Kerala" and "He has consecutively been ranked for many years as an influential Muslim from India"; these may well be true, but there is not even a hint of any controversy surrounding him, despite its clear existence. An article is not neutral if it focuses solely on good press and ignores negative attention.
• There are also serious concerns about stability. The article has nearly 200 edits since it was nominated; these are predominantly back-and-forth edits by editors with different views, not edits that help improve an already good article. Indeed, as recently as yesterday concerns about the article were being raised on its talk page.
• Finally, the article is needs significant editing for readability. This wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker by itself, but typos and broken English go beyond interrupting flow, and make it difficult to understand what the article is trying to say in places. Before a future nomination, this article should probably be brought to the guild of copy editors.

The third criterion for immediate failure is if the article "has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid."

• As of last month, the article has a cleanup banner alleging that an editor has a close connection with the subject. Granted, the banner was not on the article at the time of nomination, but the underlying issues are clearly present. I'm not sure what led SnehaRaphael1996 to specifically allege a close connection, but as discussed above, the attendant concerns about neutrality and bias are clearly evident.

The final criterion for immediate failure is if the article "is not stable due to edit warring on the page."

• As discussed above, the article is currently unstable. By way of further example, on 27 March a user removed a significant amount of content, writing that "Removed all unreferenced entries, suspected promotional content, unknown parameters from infobox:person; mostly contributed a suspected user Authordom. Unexplained reverts of this edit by the same user will be reported. Add trusted sources before reverting each entries." This content was added back two hours later. Another two hours, and a third user removed more material, with edit comment "UN-REFERENCED CONTENT REMOVED". A week later this and other edits were undone, with the comment "Pure vandalism by irshadpp after he was get extended confirmed editorship". One might be more lenient with stability if faced with an unquestionably good article that had some unfortunate and unfounded disputes between editors. Here, however, the lack of stability is a reflection of the significant problems with the article.

Authordom, I'm sorry to have to fail this nomination. If you're still interested in bringing this article to good-article status, hopefully the above comments provide some guidance. In short, before renominating I would significantly expand the breadth of the article; ensure that the subject is treated in a balanced manner; and ask the guild of copy editors to take a look. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Date of birth 1939 2402:3A80:1921:6C55:85F0:1A78:57BF:21D1 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 17:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

The line 'Grand Mufti of India' is wrong. The correct statement should be as 'Grand mufti of Sunnis in India'. This statement can b supported with a new from The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/kanthapuram-grand-mufti-of-sunnis-in-india/article26379629.ece Rational Thinker of Kerala (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)