Talk:Memon people

More information, particularly about Memons in places like South Africa would be useful. 168.209.98.35 16:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Famous Memon

Famous memons section was replaced by 203.99.49.125 to Social leaders and best workers around the world Mr Abdulla Gadawala founder of World Largest International Memon Organization who have 1.1M Members from across the globe and Mr Saleem AA Karim is the president of IMO, Memons are 3.6M across the world Mumbai Have 450000 and Karachi have 1.4M memons. India have 498 Memon Jamats and Pakistan have 57 Memon Jamats and other memon Jamats are available where memons are exist. www.internationalmemon.org without ‎any discussion, there were many important links to other wiki articles that disappeared ‎ --Siddique Katiya 12:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)‎

Famous Memon

The contribution to the Famous personalites list is well appreciated, It is my suggestion that, we must keep this manageable (otherwise we may have more than 1,000 personalites. Being a director of some jamat and city counselors, in my view is not achievements or accomplishment for this article. (1) try not to duplicate the link or personalities (indicating more than one place) (2) try not to indicate incorrect and misleading information such as (Sir Adamjee Dawood) “ his family contributed all his assets in formation of Pakistan” (3) avoid writing such as Allah gift in this community so many social worker – this is not a Islamic or Jamat web site. Rather a encyclopedia, for everyone to consult. To avoid any self praising about a person, which we may or may not have permission, It would be a good idea to create separate pages for each personalities and it is up to the interested person to contribute or describe the person. ( this information may or may not be accepted by Wikipedia) For example. . --Siddique Katiya 10:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Some thing wrong among batnwa memon they think they are superior than any other memon please don't show your bugzemafia on net also so many famous memon around the world mr Siddique katiya your namealso shows you kat every one to enjoy your self

Is there anything to back up the bit about Quid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah being a Memon? I followed a link and it says that some thought he might have been Ismaili but later converted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.43.24 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging

Please discuss

• The Article entitled Memons is entirely contributed, including several sections or part of article, Memon by me. I have no objection whatsoever to either merging part or the entire article of Memons to/from Memon with the only condition that any serious additions or deletion must be first discussed. --Siddique Katiya 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memons. Petros471 17:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Memons

• Memons are a social, cultural and business community that originated in Sindh that adhere to Sunni Islam and they speak or at least their forefather spoke a non-standard unwritten language called Memoni.

Memons includes Halai, Okhai Sindhi and Katchi Memons and also include certain Kathri,Tharati, Nasarpuria and others. Please discuss --Siddique Katiya 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Memons community was originated, as far as back in 15th Century AD, from lower Sindh near the Indus delta region. They are well respected Sunni Muslim Entrepreneurs, Philanthropist and Humanitarian in the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere.

Indo-Aryan people

I have removed the phrase Indo Aryan people twice since the article was created (the last time as part of a bigger revert), and replaced it with the more neutral ethnic group that speaks an Indo-Aryan language. The reason for this is that the phrase Indo-Aryan people smacks of a racial classification. But then again, I am no expert on the issue, so if someone feels strongly about the issue, they should change it back. 168.209.98.35 20:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Culture and History

--sidq 12:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Although Memons tend to be religious, they have retained many cultural traits from their pre-Islamic past. replace with - Although Memons tend to be religious, like any Muslims group, some memon (not all) still practice some rites which are questioned by top Islamic scholars for example - rites dealing with death such as inviting relative and friends for food upon chillum (40th day),sziarat (3rd day) and barshi (anniversary

Dispute: Claims about Memoni language

A lot of alternative theories have been removed from the page. It previously asserted that the Memoni language was similar to Gujerati and Sindhi. It now states that the memoni language is a branch of Sindhi. While this may well be the case, a claim of this nature needs to be backed up. Also the editors of this article (me included) need to watch for NPOV issues when editing. 168.209.98.35 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The History of Memons] states that:

Memons originated in 1422 CE from Thatta in Sindh. The converts were first called Momins or Mumins and the term, with the march of time, changed to Memons. This is revealed in a book entitled 'Abraazul Hq' by Sayed Ameeruddin Nuzat, under the guidance of one Peer Buzrug Alli, published in Bombay in 1873. The story related therein states that some 700 Lohana families, (inclusive, perhaps of some earlier covert and neo-Muslim converts) comprising of some 6178 individuals, accepted Islam at the hands one Sayed Yusuffuddin Quadri R.A. and finding themselves banished by their erstwhile Hindu brothers were forced to migrate. This version persisted over decades, so much so that it was reiterated by one Hussain Cassim Dada from his Presidential Chail at the first ever All India Memon Conference in Rajkot in the year 1931, and is in vogue even to this day.

Siddiqui 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That theory is one of many. It should also be noted that the source is not particularly unbiased. I do find it rather convenient (for Memons who emigrated to Pakistan) that the Sindh origin theory exists :-).

Ideally we would have some linguistic analysis that goes beyond folklore to determine the nature of the Memoni language and our roots...but the source cited cannot be used to prove much about the Memon language by itself. 168.209.98.35 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Memoni language sounds extremely similar to 'Kuthchi' which is spoken in the Kutch region (right on the border with Sindh) which is a part of the state of Gujarat but in many ways has its own culture and traditions. Parts of Kutch currently under Indian control are claimed by Pakistan. 65.94.156.136 04:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I speak memoni and i think its Gujrati and Shindh and a bit urdu mixed... so from how i speak it thats what it is... ps. im a memon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.248.244 (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In Kathiawad,Memoni was not spoken by only Memons but also by other Kathiawadi Groups. It shows that it has some local roots. Ameenzakariya (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Dispute: Origins of the word Memon

While it may seem that the word Memon is derived from Momin, a look at the Sindhi Memon article shows that there is another explanation -

The word Memon came from "Meimana" which means right side and reffered to the right flank of Moh Bin Qasim's army. This word may also be derived from Arabic word Momin meaning faithful.

Therefore, unless a reliable source can be produced that proves that the assertion in the article is correct, the dubious tag will have to stay.168.209.98.35 15:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/mammon 39.60.187.35 (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally historians try to establish the origin of Memons limited to their consideration only of one segment of Memon community from Sindh, ie. Lohanas families who became Muslims and did move to Gujrat due to financial and security reasons.

What happened to others memons ? They did not disappear in the thin air. For example Muhmmad bin Qasim’s army of thousands did not come with their families , and most likely were single man, who inter-married with locals and merged into that society. What happened to them ? When British came to Sindh ( in fact whole of India) their target was Muslims. Their aim was to weaken Muslims because Muslims offered them most resistance through out the country and overseas. After Sindhis lost the Battle of Miāni in 1843 to British colonialists who favored Hindu merchants, Memons had no choice but to move elsewhere and Gugarat was closed destinations for many.

The name " memon" emerged from, Mehman (Guest), which later got transformed as Memon. The Mawali (or mawala) who were non-Arab Muslims, such as Persians, Africans, Turks and Kurds converted to Islam in the lands conquered by the Arabs were known as Mawalis and were not treated equal to Arabs but used in the front lines of Jihads. They were considered as Mehmans (guests). Muhmmad bin Qasim’s army to Sind included detachments of mawali from Iraq who were mostly Turks. If you go by this then Memons are also of Turkish origin. Muhammad bin Qasim departed from Shiraz in 710 Syrian cavalry and detachments of Mawali troops ( aprox 4,000 ) from Iraq. These Mawali troops were from Eastern (Asian) Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.110.123 (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Memon and Memon (tribe)

Memon ethnic group and Memon (tribe) are distinct cultural groups. Siddiqui 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Gujrati Folklore about Memon

Hi,

As a kid, the folklore I was told about Memon's is that they originated from Brahmin. The page says they originated from Kshatriya. Can someone verify?

Chirag 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of theories about the origin of Memons, but for various reasons, unknown to me, these alternative theories are regularly purged from the article.

I have no idea why some editors are so attached to the theory put forward in the article. So feel free to add your material, but remember that it will probably be deleted by someone who feels attached to their particular version of history, and refuses to accept the ambiguity of Memon oral history. Park3r 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "origin" :
  • Origin of Memons three versions[http://www.memon.com/HTML/History/HistoryVer1.htm]
  • Origin of Memons three versions[http://www.memon.com/HTML/History/HistoryVer1.htm]

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a Vanity Article

This Wikipedia article on the Memons does not belong to the Memon community. Memons cannot be listed here without any regard to notability. Any such names will be removed. WP:Notability Tovojolo (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sitush's edits

Apparently Sitush and ‎Lowkeyvision disagree whether Sitush's edits are an improvement. They're definitely not vandalism, and Sitush has provided edit summaries for the separate edits that explain why he made them. I agree with Sitush that these edits, which mostly removed unsourced or not reliably sourced information, are an improvement. Thus I've reinstated them. If there are specific issues with these edits, I'd ask ‎Lowkeyvision to point out the problems instead of reverting everything. Huon (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright sock puppet of Sitush.... Discuss the edits. I have been editing this article for a long time and your are new to it. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

First of all, sock puppetry allegations go here, please. Multiple editors pointed out that Sitush's edits were not vandalism. If you disagree with the edits, please provide a rationale. For example, this book was used as a reference, but it's self-published and thus presumably not subject to editorial oversight and not a reliable source. Thus removing the book and the content based on the book seems entirely appropriate to me. Similarly, removing various "Memon people" whose articles didn't actually say they are Memons is entirely justified and arguably even mandated by our policy on biographies of living persons. Huon (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What about deleting World Memon Organization data? That is the largest organization of Memon people in the world and it was deleted. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

The idea that people with the last name Memon who live in Pakistan and India are not Memon People goes against local consensus. Okay? you understand that? Do you understand that nobody is going to provide DNA tests for a wikipedia page confirmation that a person is Memon if they have the last name Memon and are from India or Pakistan? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

The World Memon Organization is an advocacy organization, not an independent, reliable source. If it's widely accepted that South Asian people with the surname Memon are all Memon people, it should be easy to find reliable sources such as ethnology or sociology textbooks saying so. For comparison, Robert Falcon Scott was not a Scotsman, so I see no reason why everybody named Memon in an entire subcontinent should automatically belong to the Memon people. This of course ignores the various people not named "Memon" whom we also claimed to be Memon people. By the way, my first edit to this article predates your account's creation by more than two weeks. Even if it didn't, editors don't own articles just because they have edited them for a long time. Huon (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There are less than 2 million Memons world wide. World Memon Organization statistics are the only census that was EVER taken on the population count of the Memon Community. Okay? A guy named Mr. Ali Mohammad Tabba carried out the census at the request of the organization. He created a tally of continents and the number of people that were on each. That is where the numbers comes from. If we can reference WMO in the table, I would be okay with that. However, no other data like this exists in census format. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

http://memon-world.net/memom_population.htm <--here is another source. But you will again call it self published. WMO is the most reliable source. If we can cite the name of WMO and say "According to WMO figures" I would be okay with that. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

So basically you're saying that since there are no reliable sources on the number of Memon people, we should go with the unreliable sources? Somehow I don't think that's a good idea. We're better off without such numbers than with numbers of dubious validity that may well be inflated. Huon (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I respect your tone btw dude. I can actually have a conversation with you. Okay lets sort this out. I take back the sock puppet comment. Hey I gotta go to bed though. I wake up at 4:30AM and I am on the east coast of the united states. Take care :) Look forward to talking to you. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

I understand your concerns of using sources that are from the organization itself. Can we include in the article a table in the middle that states that these are statistics compiled by the world memon organization and then state the populations rather than including it in the Wikipedia legend on the top right? This way it shows the source, the results of the only census ever compiled and it wont be included in the Wikipedia legend. See below: (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Memon Population According to World Memon Organization
India	550,000
Pakistan	415,000
South Africa	25,000
United Kingdom	22,000
Sri Lanka	6,000
Burma	5,000
Bangladesh	3,000

I don't quite see the point of giving these numbers. We have no information whatsoever on the methodology, and for all I can tell they haven't been published in reliable, independent publications. How can we tell that the numbers weren't made up? Huon (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is that it is the largest memon organization in the world. The census was conducted and I doubt they would risk their credibility to express things that were not true. Second, reporting the name of the organization lets us avoid making the claim that this is fact. If the US government conducts a census we cite the US government. How can we be sure that the US census is not made up? Or for that matter how can we be sure any census is not made up? I guess what I am trying to say is that the quality of the census is determined by the credibility of the organization conducting it and hence the name of the organization should be placed on it to alay any questions regarding its absoluteness. The weight of the World Memon Organization may hold more weight to some than others. For example Rasmussen polling company has been questioned for their political right leaning bias. Hence, when they report their polls the name of the company is cited to anchor the credibility.

Also, a lot of organizations are based on the things they report on(I would go even as far as to say have a conflict of interest). For example: Gamestop sells video games. Should we ban gamestop ratings from being cited on Wikipedia because they have a conflict of interest? Or should we just state that these ratings were from Gamestop? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Lowkeyvision, I am not always right but in the case of my edits to this article I think that you will find that I have consensus behind me. For example, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has regularly determined that advocacy groups are only reliable for statements about themselves (eg: date of formation, head office location) and not for statements about those for whom they advocate. Similarly, a read of the info summarised at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists may be informative. Basically, Huon has correctly explained the rationale for what I did.

I have this article on my list for improvement but I'm afraid that it is quite a long list: I am probably one of the most experienced currently active contributors to caste articles on English Wikipedia. The number of poor examples of such articles is truly staggering. I'll get round to the Memon people in due course and, in the interval, will pop in with additional information etc as and when I find it while reading for other subjects. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have already ordered textbooks on this topic and they being shipped as we speak. I reside in the United States and there is difficulty for me to acquire such texts. World Memon Organization is not an advocacy group or a political group. It is an organization which tries to connect the different branches of the community which exist. It is a social organization. Second, there exist no better source for such an esoteric topic so I disagree with the above statements. It is not perfect(National Geographic Documentary), but is the best that is available on such a esoteric topic(the history of 1 million people out of 7 billion human beings). (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

I, too, am among the (probable) majority of Wikipedians who do not have ready access to sources and have to hunt them down and work within our means. Our Resource Exchange can be handy for some items.

If you disagree with the points made by myself and Huon then you disagree with a much wider consensus. Since Wikipedia operates on consensus, your choices are either to cause that consensus to change - for example, raise the issue of the World Memon Organization at WP:RSN, formatting it in accordance with their requirements - or go write whatever you want to write about the Memon community somewhere other than Wikipedia. It really boils down to this, sorry. And I rather think it does so at the other articles where you are in dispute. - Sitush (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You dont own wikipedia. And consensus is made with agreement. You are not providing evidence of consensus, only your words. Providing logic of "I said this. Everyone agrees with me. Nobody agrees with you" argument makes one an excellent debater in the 3rd grade but should not be used here. Give me a real reason why this source should not be used. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

I made no suggestion that I do own Wikipedia and indeed specifically said that Wikipedia content is based on consensus - please stop this barrage of insulting behaviour. I have given specific links for the consensus regarding associating individuals with caste. You will have to go to WP:RSN or somewhere similar for specific guidance on the WMO if you choose not to accept the opinion of experienced contributors here. I told you that was one of your two options. So opt. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Lowkeyvision's comment that " A guy named Mr. Ali Mohammad Tabba carried out the census at the request of the organization. He created a tally of continents and the number of people that were on each. That is where the numbers comes from." Who was that man? What relevant qualifications did he possess? What method did he use? How did he get round the problem that, for example, there has been no viable caste census data in India since 1931 (2011 data set is incomplete and likely to stay that way) or that there has never been an official caste census in, say, the US or UK? How did he poll these people? Face it, the thing seems to be a nonsense and, at best, a guess. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and that statement by Lowkeyvision is preceded by "There are less than 2 million Memons world wide." If that figure came from the WMO then it represents in part a logical flaw: the WMO figures are ok because the WMO say there are less than 2 million Memons. If it didn't come from the WMO, where did it come from? - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that WMO wrote something is a fact in and of itself, not that the fact is 100% true. Due to the esoteric nature of the topic, it is the best information available on the subject. If you have questions regarding the census, why don't you ask them yourself? Do you have better information? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

I for one don't have better information, but that doesn't make the WMO's information good. Unfortunately I have seen "social" organizations vastly inflate numbers in a similar context, and I have seen Wikipedia editors aggressively push the inflated numbers despite the existence of more reliable sources. That of course doesn't mean the WMO also inflates their numbers - but it does mean I'm unwilling to accept their word for those numbers without independent confirmation. Of course it doesn't help that we have no idea what "conducted a census" means in this context - I strongly suspect it's an euphemism for "made a bunch of guesses". Huon (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have better info, either. As always, if there are no reliable sources for something then we say nothing at all about it. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The "guesses" are the best data that is available. The information on esoteric topics are not going to be abundant. For the encyclopedia to grow information must be added with sources that they were taken from. The president of the organization(WMO) is CEO of a news company worth billions of dollars and I doubt he would make up things out of whole cloth. The people that sit on the board of this organization are not two guys in some computer room typing away. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

You'll be surprised what info is available concerning "esoteric" topics. Eg: see John Horsefield or James Tod. Being president of a news company is not in fact a good indicator of anything in particular, except perhaps in some cases (not all) an aptitude for business. Specifically, he is not the author of the statistics that you are wanting to use. That's like saying "it must be ok because my father says so". - Sitush (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your father is not a billionaire is he? Or has credibility to live up to? Invite me over for dinner if he is. Reality is that this organization has influential people that sit on it and the data was compiled. It is not US government data and nobody is asking for it to be treated as such. The organization is credible because the people that sit on the board of it are credible people. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

(edit conflict) I'll plead the Fifth. What relevance does your query or its implication have to anything related to this article or the WMO source? HM The Queen is a billionaire and so too is Bill Gates, but I wouldn't trust them to know any great detail about Memon people. - Sitush (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are not taking this to WP:RSN then this conversation is over as far as I am concerned. The ball is in your court. - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes would you trust the queen to know information about the royal crown? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Either file the claim in RSN or I will revert it because it means you are walking away from the discussion (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

The burden of evidence is on the user who wants content included. And no, I wouldn't trust the Queen to provide unbiased information on the royal crown. Huon (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Huon. You have won me over! Look! I cleaned the article up! :) (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Lowkeyvision, could you please confirm that none of the information you removed was cited at the linked articles? Per our normal summary style, when we have a "main" article and use the {{main}} template, we don't strictly have to provide the sources here. However, we can, if that makes everyone feel more comfortable. So could you please check and see if that info you removed was already sourced and, if so, please re-add it to this article? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont think any of it had citations. Consensus above stated that it is not good to have put information up on the article that we cant prove, as stated above by the two editors. Since this esoteric topic has little information available in journal or scholarly articles, we should just leave it as is. The information of organizations which produce information about such topics that are esoteric have a conflict of interest(even though they have the overwhelming amount of information), so we should not include any of it. To the best of my knowledge, none of the material I removed had citation.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

Assesment

How can the article be rated C-class based on just 3 reference?. Also the article is quite short for a C class assessment--Naveed (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This page was vandalized by Sitush and that vandalism was supported by administrative abuse by Qwyrxian to settle a personal score from before. I had placed a protection request but it was removed by Sitush during his vandalism efforts. It was then reverted by the sock puppet Huon. It is a article that I was working on improving and had ordered books to build. I will continue to build it once my books arrive from overseas. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

"This page was vandalized by Sitush"

No it wasn't, because it wasn't vandalism, as you've been told repeatedly before.

"That vandalism was supported by administrative abuse by Qwyrxian to settle a personal score from before."

No it wasn't; you were blocked to stop an edit war in accordance with policy. I don't seen anything wrong with the action he made, nor any reason to think it had any other motivation.

"I had placed a protection request but it was removed by Sitush during his vandalism efforts."

No it wasn't, it was removed by User:Darkwind, as you can see from this diff. (Also, Sitush doesn't have any vandalism efforts.)

"It was then reverted by the sock puppet Huon."

They aren't a sockpuppet.

If you have evidence of any of these things (and I would bet very good money that you don't), then display it. Otherwise, stop making accusations without evidence--and re-re-re-read WP:NOTVAND. Continuing to make such unfounded accusations can be seen as a personal attack, and can be grounds for another block. That about cover it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To you first point that this wasnt vandalism [[1]]

To your second point of Sock Puppetry [[2]]

Third, I understand that administrators have a bond. I have a lot of respect for the people who do this job because it is a service. However, I really feel that administrators who have had disputes with users should not be allowed to later ban those users. That is what I mean by administrator abuse. see WP:INVOLVED (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

The diff you quote to support your vandalism claim does not actually support your vandalism claim at all. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, please read this page about what is and is not vandalism. What you're calling "vandalism" is not vandalism, and yes, the distinction does matter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that leaving no edit summary but deleting massive amounts of data doesnt count as vandalism. What is your opinion on WP:INVOLVED? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

If you are making an accusation pertaining to WP:INVOLVED then the most appropriate place to raise it is likely here. Good luck with that. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sitush is 100% correct. Moreover, I think the case for saying Qwyrxian is involved, while not totally baseless, is pretty weak. Qwyrxian opened the DRN case (which you cited in your unblock request some time ago as evidence of being involved) at your request and barely participated in it. He participated a bit in talk page discussions, yes. However, the intent of the INVOLVED policy is that admins do not use their admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute they are participating in. Qwyrxian does not appear to have participated in this particular dispute before he blocked you, so he's uninvolved in that respect.

INVOLVED is commonly extended to cover editors whom admins have had a history of disputes with and therefore cannot be trusted to act impartially towards, but I would need more evidence than some (relatively) amicable disagreements on a talk page to draw that conclusion. The INVOLVED policy does not forbid an editor from acting in their admin capacity for anyone they've ever crossed paths with; if that were so, we would rapidly run out of admins who could deal with recurring situations, and would need to either: recruit new admins aggressively to feed them into the proverbial wood-chipper (which raises legal problems in addition to the obvious), block people much more aggressively, or abandon the INVOLVED policy altogether, all of which are bad things.

Further, the INVOLVED policy says that "the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Qwyrxian's block was pretty much routine; I don't see any reason to doubt their intentions. If the block was any longer than 2 or 3 days, then yes, that might have been unusual enough to warrant attention and analysis. But it wasn't. Ideally, Qwyrxian would've asked for another admin's opinion and allow them to act if necessary, but being less-than-perfectly-ideal is not a censurable offense.

And yes, in this situation, removing content without an edit summary is not vandalism, as Sitush had already provided descriptive edit summaries in his original removals (that were spread out over many edits). And even if those later edits could be considered vandalism, you were labeling his edits as vandalism in your first revert, before Sitush had made any reversions without an edit summary, so that argument doesn't work anyway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The beauracratic nature of the encyclopedia makes it an impossible for the common person to win against administrator abuse, no matter how blatantly clear. I am veteran member of such systems in the real world and realize the asymmetry of power that an outsider has. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Wikipedia may not be the same as your real life experiences, or perhaps your experience of both varieties says more about you than about the "systems". Regardless, I am sorry to see that you have formed such a jaundiced opinion of Wikipedia so soon after signing up. If you don't think that you will be able to get redress for your concerns then there is no point in raising them here, is there? - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A question was asked.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Yes, I know. My question is why did you raise it here? It is the wrong venue and you don't anticipate a "win". You can treat my question as rhetorical, by the way: we are drifting way off topic. - Sitush (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"How can the article be rated C-class based on just 3 reference?. Also the article is quite short for a C class assessment" - Was the question. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

Ah, I see: you were referring to a different question. Well, the answer to that particular one is that whoever assessed it thought the thing met the C-class criteria. Eg: for the India project, it can be found here. It doesn't meet it now and it hasn't met it at any point in recent months. I wouldn't read too much into the assessment rankings, except for WP:FA and perhaps WP:GA. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And the answer is "Because article ratings (especially unofficial ones like this one and unlike GAs or FAs) are fairly subjective and up for interpretation." It is certainly not because of vandalism from Sitush or admin abuse from Qwyrxian. In conclusion: stop making baseless accusations; if you have actual concerns, gather evidence in the form of diffs and cogent explanations of what policy they break and why and post it to the relevant administrator's noticeboard. Otherwise, drop it. Anything else will lead to a block. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

While I understand the removal was necessary for sourcing issues...we do still need a lead. Could someone w/more knowledge of the article write one--even a single sentence would be fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What's going on with this page?

It had an adequate, if flawed introduction, that has been blanked.

Although the earliest versions of the article expressed the uncertainty of Memon oral history, there was an aggressive tendency to introduce "facts" that fitted a single narrative, from some editors now departed.

Now it seems that there is a tendency to blank whole sections.

However, on balance, I would prefer less content than more dubious content.

Park3r (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Information in Urdu, Sindhi and Gujrati

Information about Memon Community must be available in Urdu/Hindi, Sindhi, Gujrati and Arabic. Ameenzakariya (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually Memon (Mammon) Word is a old testimony

Mammon, biblical term for riches, often used to describe the debasing influence of material wealth. The term was used by Jesus in his famous Sermon on the Mount and also appears in The Gospel According to Luke. Medieval writers commonly interpreted it as an evil demon or god. Since the 16th century, mammon has been used to negatively describe the pursuit of wealth and has been used in both religious and secular contexts. Link https://www.britannica.com/topic/mammon 39.60.187.35 (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Mammon /ˈmæmən/ in the New Testament of the Bible is commonly thought to mean money, material wealth, or any entity that promises wealth, and is associated with the greedy pursuit of gain. The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke both quote Jesus using the word in a phrase often rendered in English as "You cannot serve both God and mammon."

Link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon 39.60.187.35 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)