Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Accuracy[change source]

This very article on the English Wikipedia has been subject to a long and bitter edit war, involving sockpuppets/meatpuppets, and has been indefinitely semi-protected. Please see w:Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. The article was reviewed and it was decided that this article would be treated as a BLP due to lack of sources confirming Shahi's alleged death. Soon after being indefinitely protected, a confirmed sockpuppet of a now banned editor [1] presented Why People Disapprove Personalities as an attempt to confirm Shahi's death. It was reviewed here and here, where it was found to be a plagiarized article with no reliable sources cited. After being banned on the English Wikipedia, a sock of user Iamsaa has started adding this article as a source for claims of Shahi's death on the Simple English Wikipedia and the other Wikipedias containing articles about Shahi. I think until a reliable source confirms Shahi's alleged death, the article should be treated as a BLP. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion, but the article looks a lot like its English counterpart. We are not a copy of English Wikipedia. Simplification should be made on the article. Griffinofwales (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Its not necessary that this article should be a copy of Engligh Wikipedia article, it cite proper references and your self-promotion is not going to be succeeded here, don't be silly as we are now working and soon you will see a change in Engligh Wikipedia article. Stop using WP for advertisement of your organization and belief.--Imsaa (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Has he been declared legally dead by a court? If not, I think that I would consider him as disappeared and not dead. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
We on the English Wikipedia found no confirmation from reliable sources to support the claim that Shahi died. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, look at this Source about death of GS, also you can see and more references can be provide.--Imsaa (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
See This, discussing the sources Iamsaa presented before. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that all other wikis follow English Wikipedia.--Imsaa (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason the sources weren't used are mentioned. All Wikipedias depend on Verification, especially in matters like this. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Stop advertising and using wikipedia for the preach of your belief.--Imsaa (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

<-Imsaa, considering how popular he seems to be, can you find some more main-stream sources for his death? I have never heard of those sites, and I wouldn't cite them. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.
This source is from dawn newspaper as it is biggest English newspaper in Pakistan.
This source is from Daily Times, which is second largest English newspaper in Pakistan.
This source is from a US English News website, which clearly indicates the death/disappearance of Gohar Shahi.
Should you require any further information, please don't hesitate to contact. Regards,--Imsaa (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Good work, Imsaa. I agree with you wholly. Your references are pretty reliable, considering that they are the biggest English newspaper in Pakistan. However, I'm not completely sure if other people may agree with you. Anyway, God bless, and ask me if you have any questions! Welcome to wikipedia! Belinda 08:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't trust, since it also published a story that Shahi was murdered in prison while This source from says otherwise. I looked this up before, and found this:
There are a lot of different reports about Shahi's alleged death. { The Guardian} mentions that "Gohar Shahi, who claimed to have met Jesus, is reported to have died in 2003. Mr Algohar said he merely disappeared." and this claims that Shahi was murdered in a Pakistani jail (I don't know about this one, as Shahi had allegedly fled to the UK).This report on MFI by UNHCR states, 'According to a January 2006 article by The Sunday Telegraph, though, Gohar Shahi died in 2003 (“three years ago”, The Sunday Telegraph, 15 January 2006), whereas 'the news agency Pakistan Press International (PPI) reports in December 2001 on the burial of Gohar Shahi,“Spiritual figure and founder of Anjuman-e-Sarfarooshan-e-Islam International”, on 12 December 2001 (PPI, 8 December 2001)'. In the same report it states 'In November 2008, the Indian news agency PTI reports on the MFI as“a multi-faith spiritual organisation that promoted the doctrine of divine love since 1980. The organisation was headed by Ra Riaz Gohar Shahi, who had fled the country and is presently based in United Kingdom (UK) after Sindh High Court sentenced him to life imprisonment on charges of blasphemy.” (PTI, 20 November 2008)'. It seems the news agencies are just as confused as the rest, which is why I've come to the conclusion that Shahi's whereabouts are relatively unknown.

The Quote from the Dawn newspaper's use for actually verifying Shahi's alleged death was disputed, 'Quote from Dawn newspaper: "Having read so far, assuming all to be well, I inquired what was the problem and where was Goharshahi. I was told he had left for his heavenly abode whilst travelling abroad and his mortal remains had been transported back, buried at his home in Kotri, but that his soul goes marching on. Another John Brown, I remarked. They were not amused."' As one uninvolved editor said, "This can not be used to claim death with a date in his infobox and all, if you were to insert it, it could be in a section, controversies surrounding dissapearance, or something and would need to be attributed to the actual person that wrote it or claimed it, personally it looks very weak to me and I wouldn't bother inserting it at all, if there are multiple reliable sources with claims of similar death reports and burials then a small section perhaps". Full discussion here. I feel uneasy about using it to confirm Shahi's death. Forgive me for being blunt about this, but this is a long-running issue that has been discussed in great detail on the English Wikipedia. I hope my behavior isn't offensive to anyone. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User Omirocksthisworld is trying to mislead administrators of wikipedia, he is using wikipedia for advertising his belief, I think after Pakistani & US sources, there should no doubts on his death, his tomb is also located in Kotri, Sindh, Pakistan.--Imsaa (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the source presented from the, an editor found "Why people disapprove personalities, by Sayyed Aamir Ali, is plagiarized and cites no reliable sources.
  • The paragraph beginning "Among other Sufis, al-Hallaj was an anomaly ..." was taken without attribution from w:Mansur Al-Hallaj.
  • The paragraph beginning "[Another example was Ibn-e-Arabi,] Ibn ‘Arabî (1165–1240) can be considered the greatest of all Muslim philosophers ..." is taken from the Ibn Arabi entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Much of the rest is taken from and rearranged.
  • And many of the readers' comments are similarly sockpuppets, meatpuppets or plagiarists. ". Please see this for the full discussion. Please also note that isn't a third party website, and that Shahi's followers parted into groups with different beliefs about his disappearance/death, and is the root of edit wars on the English Wikipedia article. Anyway, in light of what was said about the article, I too am wary about using it to verify Shahi's supposed death. I mean, if after looking at all the aspects of using the article for citation, it is agreed by other uninvolved editors that the article should be used to verify Shahi's death, I will not go against it. Perhaps a compromise could be made (i.e make a section called "Controversy of Disappearance/Death" to discuss why it is unclear)? Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Imsaa, once again I'd like to say that my intention was to not "advertise my belief" but just to show both sides and why I disagree with using the sources to support the claim Shahi died. I do not mean to come off as POV-pushing, but I would really like to make sure all the aspects of using the article as a source are taken into account. It's not personal. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your politeness and coolness, Omirockthisworld. Perhaps an uninvolved editor can take a look at this. :) Personally, I think that if the English Wikipedia community has agreed not to put such statements into the article, Simple should do the same, though of course, they are different projects. If its verifiability is not accepted there, it probably will not be accepted here. —Classical Esther 09:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and I agree uninvolved editors' input on this would be appreciated :)! Omirocksthisworld (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

<-Is there not a real news story that reported on his death? The three sources Imsaa gives me seem to be columns and not news. Omirocks also brings out some good points. Imsaa, could you provide some controversy-free reliable sources. I am more inclined to not report his death because the English Wikipedia does not, but I am persuadable (having no prior experience in this area). Griffinofwales (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
<-Dear Griffinofwales, Thanks for your message, for the time being I am not be able to give you more sources on death of Gohar Shahi by the way all of them are not article as :::This source of Daily Times, which is second largest English newspaper in Pakistan, is a news story, rest are article evident that he is no more and his also located in Kotri, Sindh, Pakistan. Regarding which states that Shahi was murdered in prison, this was published in omission and newspaper pulished sorry for that, unfortunately, it is not available online.--Imsaa (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is going on on the Spanish Wikipedia as well discussion here. As I mentioned to Imsaa there, I feel like it would be good to document all the controversy surrounding Shahi's supposed death/disappearance. I still find it difficult to trust because, if after realizing the information in the article was so inaccurate, wouldn't they think to change the info or publish an apology to Shahi where it was available to the public as well? Anyway as I mentioned on the Spanish Wikipedia, I think it would be a good idea to make a section called "Controversy surrounding Disappearance/death", and document the different claims made about Shahi's disappearance/death. If Iamsaa really wants to use the editorial as a source, I think we could include a quote from the editorial and attribute it to the author (i.e "According to Ardeshir Cowasjee, 'I was told he [Shahi] had left for his heavenly abode whilst travelling abroad and his mortal remains had been transported back, buried at his home in Kotri, but that his soul goes marching on.'"). Omirocksthisworld (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
No, Shahi's death is not disputed but you are trying to make it disputed for the advertisement of your belief and orgnaization, please don't create problems and stop lying.--Imsaa (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This article lists Goher Shahi as being a Sunni Muslim. I don't even think followers of Shahi would consider themselves Sunni, nor do they adhere to established Sunni beliefs. I suggest we change that Farhan000 (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Improving the article[change source]

Hello all, I think before we start a fight, we should make an attempt to make this article better. I am not a Muslim, so I cannot really judge the content. Given that Gohar Sahi seems to have been a "religious figure", one approach might be:

  • Born there, did that, had that education, etc..
  • Try to use simple, easy to understand wording
  • AFAICT Shahi seems to have died of pneumonia, in Manchester, UK
  • Keep his teachings/what his followers believed apart from his life
  • Document using (reliable) references. This also allows to clearly mark the points that are controversial
  • His being judged for blasphemy, the attempts on his life (etc) should be fairly easy to source (e.g from newspapers)

Wikipedia (as SEWP) is an encyclopedia, writing I am right and you are wrong does not fulfill the purpose of providing information about Sahi. Writing that there are two (or more) different views, without saying or implying one of them is "more right" than the others does. --Eptalon (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your points Eptalon, but I have't come across a reliable source saying Shahi died from pneumonia in Manchester.

A report on Shahi's followers by the UNHCR found:

  • The Sunday Telegraph claims Shahi died in 2003
  • In November 2008, the Indian news agency PTI.... “ Ra Riaz Gohar Shahi, who had fled the country and is

presently based in United Kingdom (UK) after Sindh High Court sentenced him to life imprisonment on charges of blasphemy.” (PTI, 20 November 2008) (so they say Shahi is alive)

  • The Pakistani Press Foundation says Shahi was buried in 2001

The one source saying that Shahi did die from pneumonia is Why People Disapprove Personalities, but its plagiarized and cites no reliable sources. It was presented by a banned editor who was using sockpuppets, archive here, and the people on English Wikipedia discussed it here, and found it to be untrustworthy. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

    • I think if you read, terms & policies of wikipedia here, Why People Disapprove Personalities, is not plagiarized as used text was from wikipedia, which can be used according to my understanding, BTW Shahi is dead, which can be prove from number of sources and report Hindustan Times is wrong, basically an statement was published by newspaper, which was given by MFI.--Imsaa (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Look, can you prove this about the Hindustan Times? I mean, it would be just as easy to say the sources saying Shahi died were "fed information". Also, Why People Disapprove Personalities copied from the Standford Encyclopedia, and it cites no reliable sources. Its also an editorial and not an actual news report. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved editor please consider these points and can we get some consensus on what to do about this issue? Omirocksthisworld (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with consensus on this issue, which is not an issue exactly.--Imsaa (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how its not an issue- obviously there are different versions published by newspapers about whether Gohar Shahi died or disappeared. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You problem generator, you are trying to make it a dispute, which it is not. Its been proved from several sources that Shahi was died a long time but you are pretending to be unaware of the fact or you using wikipedia for the projection & advertisement of your organization and beliefs.--Imsaa (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Making accusations such as this do not help solve anything and only drive users away from this site or make them upset. Kansan (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
As I pointed out earlier, even news sources disagree about Shahi's whereabouts..which is why I'm skeptical about simple saying "Shahi died" without looking at how reliable the sources are that say so. In particular, no news source I read said "Shahi died from Pneumonia"- the only source presented that says so is Why People Disapprove Personalities, and it is an opinion editorial, not a news story. Also as I mentioned before other news articles claim Shahi disappeared or alive somehow. My intent wasn't to create problems, I'm just skeptical about the sources used to confirm Shahi's death. I'm sorry if this has offended you- I wasn't trying to. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou Omirocksthisworld, for your good temper and calmness, and Imsaa, I understand, but please don't attack people or begin to get bitey, as Kansan said. However, I have an idea to stop this horrible arguement: Why don't we just take out the part about Shahi dying? We don't need to say that he didn't die, and we don't need to say he's alive. People can guess that for themselves. Besides, I don't see why anybody would be that interested if Shahi died or not. ;P I don't, anyhow. Well, anyway, we can just skip that part. Remember, Wikipedia has to have only facts, and if we're not sure, it would be better not to do it. Hehe, just another ridiculous suggestion of mine... Belinda 06:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea Belina :). I can agree to that. Omirocksthisworld (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well then, did somebody already move it? Or should I move it out? :) By the way, my name is Belinda ;P. Lots of people make mistakes like that about my name... Hehe. Belinda 06:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry that must have been a typo! Haha :)Omirocksthisworld (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to be sorry about. :P anyway, I Pictogram reply.svg fixed it. Now, the whole section of "Death" is gone... But maybe I did it wrong. Please fix it if I made any other mistakes... Belinda 06:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice:). Should we say Shahi "was" or Shahi "is" then? "Was" would suggest Shahi died, "Is" would suggest Shahi didn't. Also, if we are not going to mention Shahi's supposed death at all, then it shouldn't say (25 Novemebr 1941-25 Novemeber 2001). Any suggestions, anyone? Omirocksthisworld (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Gulp, maybe I should have been more patient before removing them. If you want, I can revert my edits... But why don't we just do it as "is"? That would be most, er, right, because it wouldn't say anything about his death. But maybe not... I don't know for sure. Belinda 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally I have no objections :). I was just thinking we should see if anyone else doesn't agree with us. I think it should be "is" as well though :). Omirocksthisworld (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should write the article along the the way it's written in the en version. —Classical Esthertalk 08:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, its not the way to deal with the issue, Shahi death is not disputed at all.--Imsaa (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Imsaa, but I think that's the way we'll have to settle it for now, since it is being disputed ^. "Most of the time, if a rule has not been made here, or if a something that happens is not covered by the rules that are here, we will look at the rules on the main English Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects." The article doesn't have to definitely state that either claim is 100% true, but coolly and neutrally state both sides of the question. That's what neutral point of view is for. :) And most of all, let's keep calm and kind when we discuss disagreements like this. —Classical Esthertalk 12:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Per Esther! Exactly what I wanted to say. Sorry, Imsaa, but... it's out for now! Belinda 12:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

<-Shahi's death is disputed otherwise en wouldn't have him listed as alive. Omi brings up good points, and for now, I believe that we should go with not reporting his death as en has done. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you Griffinofwales. I am ready to give sources for Shahi's death, why don't you ask Omi to provide source if shahi is alive?--Imsaa (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source, go for it; however the one you are attempting to use is not. LaurynDirty little secrets 17:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What about this one, the death of Shahi is not disputed at all as I myself have been to his shrine.--Imsaa (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
That source does not say he died. It notes that the time (M/Y) is not known, as the sources contradict each other. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

<-From what I can see, there is a controversy surrounding his supposed death, and so in my opinion, it would be best to report him as alive, with a section on the controversy. If enough agree, that will become the "policy" on this page. The edit warring has to stop. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement that his "death is not disputed at all" simply isn't the case; it's being disputed here. I think we absolutely need to change the claims that he died in the last two paragraphs, and perhaps even change "was" to "is" in the first paragraph, due to BLP concerns, and sooner rather than later. Kansan (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Without reading the sources and links above, I've thought about this. (I haven't read the article yet!) As the death isn't proven for sure, but it's proven that he's alive as well. I think it might be the best to use is in the article. A section called "Controversial about his death" at the end would be wise. In this section both sides (death/alive) should be mentioned and underlined with sources. Just my NPOV as an uninvolved editor. Barras talk 17:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
An administrator would have to do it because the page is fully protected. Kansan (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Bringing this to a close[change source]

I have taken a look through the discussion here as an outside admin (note, for disclosure, I was the first to protect this article, but have not participated in this discussion other than getting the original reverters to participate here). The consensus here seems to be that the death has not been fully proven using reliable sources. Therefore, I conclude that this article should be treat the subject as a living person. I do not believe a "controversy over death" section should be added right away. If editors here believe there should be, it should be written (and sourced) here on the talk page prior to being added to the main article.

With this, I will lift the full protection to the article. Any user is welcome to carry out the consensus based on discussion here. I (and other admins) will be monitoring this article. If disputes return, a full protection will be restored. I am also placing User:Imsaa and User:Omirocksthisworld on a 1 revert restriction on this page. If either should revert more than one time in a 24 hour block, they will be blocked.

I welcome comments on this decision, but believe it reflects consensus here. Either way (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I can agree to that. Thanks for your help :). Omirocksthisworld (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that it would hurt to add a section on the controversy over his death. For example, over on the English Wikipedia, there's a well sourced section on the controversy (without taking a side, of course.) Kansan (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is actually died[change source]

I am surprized to see that you people are fighting over the death of Gohar Shahi, which happened a long time. There are several references to prove this:

  1. Check this link
  2. 2nd source

If you have any further question, please don't hesitate to ask.-- (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made some changes in this article, if they are wrong, please feel free to revert them back.-- (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your edits. I have reverted them because of the close of discussion above. At this point, the wiki believes that we should not report his death. Thanks for helping out, and I hope to see you helping elsewhere. Griffinofwales (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I am surprized to see that all sources are clearly indicating the death of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and despite the fact, you are ignoring it?-- (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Letters to the editor are not reliable. Do you have any reliable sources such as an article in a newspaper or magazine that mentions his death? Lauryn Dirty little secrets 07:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
He was a pakistani personality and in pakistan most of the newspapers are not online why dont you consider following sources:
  1. Check this source
  2. This source is from dawn newspaper as it is biggest English newspaper in Pakistan.
  3. This source is from Daily Times, which is second largest English newspaper in Pakistan.
  4. This source is from a US English News website, which clearly indicates the death/disappearance of Gohar Shahi.--Imsaa (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The article only says "I was told he had left for his heavenly abode whilst travelling abroad and his mortal remains had been transported back, buried at his home in Kotri, but that his soul goes marching on. Another John Brown, I remarked. They were not amused." and this is hardly something that would be considered reliable. The other websites you point out are from the same domains as earlier (gatewaytodivinemercy and dailytimes). I'm afraid that neither of these will work. Lauryn Dirty little secrets 06:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
If you carefully read This article, it also states that The sentences are said to total 59 years. An appeal was filed in the High Court of Sindh and before it could be decided, Goharshahi died and the case was 'abated', which clearly resolve this issue and confirm death status.--Saeedrags (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the death is not disputed but the date of death is disputed because all sources clearly indicates that he was died.--Saeedrags (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I was searching for the reliable source and aftermath, I found this source of telegraph, UK. I hope it would work.--Saeedrags (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Omi is presenting lame reasons, This article, it also states that The sentences are said to total 59 years. An appeal was filed in the High Court of Sindh and before it could be decided, Goharshahi died and the case was 'abated', the case is only abated in case of death only. Shahi was a Pakistani personality and I am a Pakistani and Omi has never been to Pakistan, how come he say when Government is abating case. It only possible when a party dies. Let me tell you that the Dawn is number one English News Paper of Pakistan and its text is reliable in all the aspects. Moreover, the email address of This article's author is there, you can simply email and ask. It means that above reference is most reliable as it is published and verifiable.--Saeedrags (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Lauryn Ashby has pointed out reasons why these sources are not necessarily reliable. For example, the Dawn article seems to be based on hearsay. For Biography of Living People reasons, which is important to Wikipedia, we must present Shahi as a living person unless we have clear evidence to the contrary, and what we have here is not clear enough. Kansan (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If you check all the references pertaining to his death, all references are clearly indicating his death, I think the death is not disputed only the date of death is disputed. That's why it should be in category of living persons. As per my view.--Saeedrags (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am unable to undertand, when:
  • Gohar Shahi was born on 25-11-1941 and died on 25-11-2001. [2]
Then why date of death is not mentioned?

Edits by[change source]

These edits are inconclusive. One link was broken, another seemed to be in the form of a letter from a supporter and the third mentioned that Riaz "died or disappearred" on the day quoted as his death. Without definite proof I have undone these changes, Bärliner 12:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  • When its been proved with reliable sources that HE is actually dead then why are you forcing to add biased and unsourced material?
    These sources are hardly reliable; I fully agree with what Barliner says. I see no reason to restore your claims unless you find some better sources proving that he is dead. As long as you cannot, this will be treated as a BLP, and the protection in the page will stay. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a preview and a secondary source. Does "Manchester" mean the city or the old metropolitan county. Was his death properly registered, and is there an index number to confirm? --Bärliner (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)