Talk:Mujeer Du'a

Mass deletion

Hey First explain your reason in talk page.Saff V. (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Saff V. Reasons are UNRELIABLE SOURCING. find better sourcing if you want to put in the info. Reasons for tagging are ,,,,,look at the frigging tag it is self explanatory. Kinda tired of every tom dick and harry who wants to put in unreferenced information from self published sources and then demands an explanation when it is deleted. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey You delete the text before add up the discussion. Your faith is very bad and you are bad user that just think to delete. I undone the text and you should not undo until this discussion is open. Say your reasons for references that why is unreliable?Saff V. (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Saff V. they are unreliable because WP:RS says so. The sourcing is laughable to be frank. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Please examine the references one by one and say your reason for each one.Saff V. (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Saff V. They are all "WEBSITES" and "SELFPUBLISHED" books of "NON_NOTABLE" authors. Furthermore the text is not even present in many of the sources. And some fo this shit is complete gibberish, what the hell does Although the number of seeds and leaves of trees and sand desert rain is mean? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Which one is self-publish?Saff V. (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

this and this. they are the only books mentioned in the entire article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Why second source is self-publish? How examine the source?Saff V. (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, first source is a simple PDF that publishes Ramadan's prayer. The source has not any publisher. How you investigated it?Saff V. (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Self published means (of a writer) publish (a piece of one's work) independently and at one's own expense.. This is how we know that a book is self published, that it is published by the same guy/organization that wrote/compiled it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

English translator is Sayyid Athar Husain S. H. Rizvi and publisher is As-Serat Publications. Are these name the same? He is a book and article writer and translatore and As-Serat Publications is independent publication.Saff V. (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"@User:Saff V. As-Serat Publications is not a reliable publisher. they do not have any editorial oversight etc. Perhaps you should read WP:RS before commenting on this. Further more what is this gibberish you want to put in "Although the number of seeds and leaves of trees and sand desert rain is". Why in the name of all that is holy and blonde, do you want to remove the tags? and why do you want to source information to unreliable websites. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

First you said the source is self-publish and now say As-Serat Publications is not a reliable publisher, Which one is correct self-publish or unreliable publisher? Mr/Miss delete is final way but there are better way for improvement of articles. If you want help the article, suggest more reliable sources and copyedit the article. The subject is notable and we must try to improve the text.Saff V. (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Self published means that the author gives the money for publishing the book. As Seerat does that for you. you go there, give them your book , give them money and they publish it for you. They have ZERO editorial oversight. Also why are you not replying about tags, your inclusion of gibberish and websites? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you ask from publication that take money and then publish? About the sentence that you said, this is a translation of Pierson sentence. It is about importance of the Dua that forgive all sins. It said that If you have a lot of sins, when you read the Dua in Ramadan your sins forgive. Seed and leaves of trees and sand desert was used for explaining a lot of sins. We can edit this sentence.Saff V. (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: and @Toddy1: Please say your idea about above discussion and FreeatlastChitchat works and ideas?Saff V. (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Make a list of the sources. For each source, explain why you think it is a reliable source for the information. Remember that a source can be reliable for one purpose and unreliable for another. If he/she is saying the source is unreliable, discuss this whether it is or not.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Please can FreeatlastChitchat quote the things that he/she says makes no sense. Remember he/she will be commenting on what you have written, not on you. If he/she says that it is rubbish, he is being kind and helpful by telling you where what you wrote was not what you meant to write.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would examine the dubious sources here. Mhhossein (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns

@User:Saff V., Mhhossein and Toddy1. Here are the sourcing concerns, I wont use markup so you can see the websites even at a casual glance.

1. Islamic Prayers Voulme II written by Sohale Sizar. Even google had trouble finding this guy. non notable guy with non notable book, published by.......wait for it.......unknown. highly reliable in my opinion.
2. This website http://www.erfan.ir/english/aboutProfessor is highly unreliable as a source of "facts". Yes it may be used to express the opinion of "the divine" professor, but not as a statement of facts.
3. http://www.qul.org.au/library/duas-supplications/412-dua-mujeer-the-supplication-of-the-lenient-supporter has been used. This is a poster boy for unreliable. I checked the sites daily visits and stats and was.....frankly...surprised. MY STUDENT's BLOG gets more visits than this site. Furthermore the site is just a run of the mill website, it has no authority.
4. This website http://portal.etrat.net/pimages/Ramadhan/AbuHamza-Jawshan-Mujeer.htm#Dua-Mujeer has been utilized. I look at at and find myself asking. Seriously guys? Websites are considered greyline in reliable to start with but this website takes the cake for being one of the most unreliable collections out there. at the time I visited it, there was ONE GUEST ONLINE.
5. This book http://www.shianetwork.org/kazim/PRAYERS_AND_SUPPLICATIONS_RAMDZAN.pdf has been used as a source. Dare I ask for publisher? for there appears to be none. no publisher, no publishing information, just a Pdf and it is used as a source on wikipedia.
6. This book http://asserattours.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Amaal-Mahe-Ramazan.pdf was published by As-serat publications in 2010. the author appears to be a non notable run of the mill dude who collects hadith etc and bunches them together. no scholar here for anyone to see.
7. This website http://www.tebyan.net/newindex.aspx?pid=217602 may be used to express opinion but not as a statement of facts. and even then with caveats I am sure.
8. This website is a news site http://jahannews.com/vdcc0oq1e2bqem8.ala2.html. without any editorial "concerns" btw. Just how will it be reliable for saying that the mujer dua can forgive all sins, is beyond me.
9. This website http://www.duas.org/mujir_2gif.htm has been used a source for the text of prayer. I find this hilarious seeing that we are saying in the lede that this prayer has been around for centuries. Just where is the primary source of this prayer? Was the prayer text directly uploaded to a website? Thousands of Primary sources like the Quran and the bible, liturgical sources, traditions and hadith etc have been digitized, and no one can find the text for the prayer in all those sources? how can this be possible?

Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As-Serat Publications is stretching it a bit. As Serat Tours is a package tour operator. If you want to know why you should go on one of their religious holidays, read page 220 of this brochure. You can go for 89000-99000 Indian Rupees (1200-1350 Euro).-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected the text of the article so that sources [8] and [9] above are used for a purpose for which they are reliable. Source [8] is reliable for telling us Ayatollah Mojtahedi's opinion. Source [9] is reliable for telling us the opinions of some other Shia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ayatollah Mojtahedi was a notable person.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The correct URL for source source [2] is the web page of the late Ayatollah Ustad Husayn Ansarian. I did a Google search for for the professor, putting his name in inverted commas. As a result of this search, I accept source [2] as reliable for Shia beliefs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced the UNREFERENCED tag with a REFIMPROVE tag. It is clear to me that at least three of the sources are reliable for the purpose they are used in the article. (I modified the article text slightly, so that it could be supported by these citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)