Talk:Roza Bal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge 2006

I suggest to move the information contained in Yuz Asaf over here, as this article is fits here better, in the article on the site. Also, the site is real while the figure of Yuz Asaf and his identification with Jesus is highly questionable. This should also solve the problem of this article being a stub. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, that makes sense... doesn't seem to be any objections... I'm here in Srinagar now, and plan to find this place tomorrow, if I find out anything new I'll be sure to add it... Cacahuate 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoax of the century. The Jews their friends the Ahmadis are behind the hoax. No semite ever came into Hindu Kashmir. Read Rajataringini. See the real story behind this fraud: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is a hoax: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Christianity stub?

Moved from the article:

This is not a Christianity stub. The Roman influenced areas of Christianity were never informed of Tomb of Jesus related information (or the information was withheld by the Vatican) so it is only really known about in Eastern branches of Christianity and amongst other faiths of the area. The Roman influenced areas include all Protestant denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.148.93 (205.250.148.93 • contribs) 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The tomb information is, as far as I can tell, unknown in Eastern branches of Christianity, although there are ancient inscriptions indicating their presence in the area. Further study on this is being conducted by a number of individuals from various backgrounds, Fida Hassnain among them. I am myself hoping at some point to discover the viewpoints of the Mar Thoma churches in Kerala, South India, but have been unable to do so yet. BobGriffin-Nukraya (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing Wars

Valid research links were removed. I have returned them. There are about 3 concurrent conversations on this topic at Wikipdeia at the moment. It started because not only were resources and citations removed, they were replaced with highly predjudicial and demeaning links. This was initiated by someone who has a past pattern of trashing authors he doesn't agree with. It became neccessary to put a stop to things before they went too far. HighonaTree, I would be grateful if you would leave this alone now. These issues are being taken to Administrative level and I would not want you dragged into it. many Thanks.NewYork10021 (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Numerous editors have doubted or denied that these books can be regarded as reliable sources, the only ones arguing otherwise are the single-purpose accounts belonging to Olsson herself and her relative (and now you as a brand-new user). See:

Talk:Yuz_Asaf#Suzanne_Olsson_book

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (2nd nomination)

User talk:R.Tabor

User talk:Kashmir2

User_talk:Dougweller#Self_Published_Books_on_Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yuz_Asaf

As for your veiled threat: [1]

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no veiled threats. You are misinterpreting. "Many" editors did not deny reliablitlity. Only one or two over and over again. By the way, look again at the prior post by Bob Griffin in which he states the research being done by Fida Hassnain and "others' The "Others' include Suzanne Olsson and her books, one of which is co-authored with Hassnain.. NewYork10021 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to carry on here. Let it end now. Let them edit whatever they see fit. The edits and these posts speak for themselves. People can see that and judge the rightness(or otherwise) of how Wiki editors manage information and make decisions here.

SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Roza Bal and Yuz Asaf "Edits'

Fullstop said at the 'Yuz Asaf' talk page:

Regardless of whether Olsson is reliable or not,... the Olsson book is completely irrelevant as this article is about 'Yuz Asaf' and not whether Jesus survived the crucifixion (which is—in all its numerous facets—what Olsson's book is about). Misusing this article to spin-up that subject is coatracking/OR. She can appear somewhere on WP (e.g. in one of the numerous Jesus articles), but not here. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)end of quote...................

This statement clearly shows lack of understanding of the topic at hand when Wiki editors choose to add or delete things. In Hassnain's and my own books are whole chapters devoted to seeking links between the names Yuz Asaf and Jesus as the entire premise is that Yuz Asaf IS Jesus who IS buried in Roza Bal tomb. There are only two pages here at Wiki that are relevent to our research, this one, 'Yuz Asaf' and 'Roza Bal', the tomb of Jesus. The editor 'Fullstop' is totally ignorant of the topic and should not be making editing decisions here. But no worries, Fullstop, as you can see, our names have been wiped off almost every page at Wiki since these editing wars started.

G.Rutter has been editing the 'Yuz Asaf' page since April 2005. He has taken it upon himself to make most all decisions regarding the edits to this page. Look at the Talk history and it quickly becomes evident that he also doesn't have a clue what is relevent. Many lengthy discussions and arguments have erupted because he clearly does not understand the topic at all. 'High on a Tree' is an editor on the "Roza Bal' page who also has no knowledge of the subject and makes very poor choices in choosing how to edit that page. It has become his 'pet project' and he will edit as he darn well sees fit, whether it helps the page or not.

To Dougweller, first I am posting under my own name. I didn't have a name at Wiki before this. Second, this is about contention over removing books and sources. That is what started all this, don't you recall? Legitimate sources and links were removed and replaced with just one negative and highly inflammatory article by some fringe group represented by just one individual. Yet you all, as editors, allowed this to happen. It is shocking. Getting that straightened out with Paul Smith, aka Wfgh66 has gradually led to all traces of my name being stricken from Wiki. Self-promotion? Or self-defense?

While erasing me you were allowing ridiculous material to remain. Saying I was deleted because I was "self-published" was grossly unfair because several self-published books remained even fictional books, that none of you 'editors' questioned. The reason 'Roza Bal Line' remained at the 'Roza Bal' page was because I didn't put it there, nor remove it because I didn't know the rules. I am not a Wiki editor.

As you were explaining the rules I realized you were allowing many others to circumnavigate them. On this page and the 'Roza Bal' page have appeared self-published fiction, links to articles about Billy Meier and his Jesus information gathered from aliens, and even a self-promotional book about a man's travels to Kashmir. Such resources were all that remained while you were targeting me for what you refer to as "fringe" self published fiction.

Finally Doug, you worded something in a way that suggested my books were 'fiction' and that was the end of the discussion. My books and Hassnain's books were immediately deleted by another editor listening in on our conversation. We, meaning Professor Fida hassnain and myself, only research Yuz Asaf, Roza Bal, and Jesus in India after the crufcifixion. We present as much research from India as we can find in India to support these views. People who write other books, and make films on the topic depend upon our material as a reliable source because they themselves cannot get to India or Kashmir....and if at all, then only for a few days. There are two independent film productions coming out in next few weeks, and a dozen more already out there that have consulted us for accurate information about this topic. Articles about our research appear regularly around the world. Fortean Times, Times of India, and several Italian, Russian and Scandinavian newspapers and magazines have peer reviewed our books in the past. I know there are many more based upon the emails I get, but I don't happen to keep records of them.

We never get royalties or pay from others. We have no money to show for all this effort. We think it is important to keep the research in the forefront (and as hassle-free as possible) in anticipation this will not only help protect these sites but will promote the DNA and archaeological research, things we have worked tirelessly for.

Of course I personally feel targeted here now, and I feel you have acted unfairly and unjust. You have attempted to trash my name, my work and valid contributions. You refer to them as "fringe" and fictional, and not worthy to appear on these pages. I am saddened by such words and by your lack of understanding about this topic.

I wont post here again. I just wanted to leave this message for all those who come here to read about Yuz Asaf and Roza Bal. I personally do not believe any of the Wiki editors in this situation have acted fairly or understood what they were/are editing. On that note, and with a sense of sadness and regret over your handling of these issues, I shall close this discussion.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

When Suzanne Olsson told me some books were self-published, I checked, found out they were, and removed them. She put them back. Not having time to carefuly scrutinise every book is not the same as 'allowing'. I definitely did not call Olsson's books fiction and have tried my best to explain to her how Wikipedia works. I clearly failed. This is all clearly 'fringe' by Wikipedia standards, though. Doug Weller (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:"... reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." Reliable sources Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above)....as per removal of relevent sources and replace with sources of highly speculative and dubious agendas...

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs[5] should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

–Jimmy Wales [6]SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Today I undid an edit made by someone here who also accused me of "shameless self promotion" then deleted m\that refrence. May I please point out to same person that you allowed to remain a fictional book that has been based upon my non-fiction, a book that was self-published for years before being picked up by a small publisher in India...the author (The Roza Bal Line by Shawn Haigins) "shamelessly" inserted his book in numerous topics around Wikipedia....while mine, also picked up by a small publisher in India, is still being hassled here at Wikipedia. I have nothing against Shawn personally. I am merely pointing out the hypocracy of the edits being made here and at the "Yuz Asaf" page. If this continues, I will make a formal complaint to higher authorities at Wikipedia, rewrite and update the entire article , and request that the page be locked. I hope you understand and see the irony in these kinds of spiteful edits and comments. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneOlsson (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Release of New Book To Be Included

Professor Fida Hassnain and I have researched Roza Bal tomb for years and now our book is released. The Title is Roza Bal, The Tomb of Jesus. We have spent years investigating the name Yuz Asaf associated with the tomb and with Jesus. We investigate the claims that Yuz Asaf could be Jesus and that he survived crucifixion. We investigate the history of Roza Bal tomb and the claiments of a bloodline to Yuz Asaf and Jesus. We are actively seeking the DNA from Yuz Asaf and Roza Bal. The book is self-published in America. However it is also published by Gulshan Publishers in India, a reputable Publishing house with years of academic books listed in their titles. We do not need to provide a link to the amazon site. It just seemed the most convenient way for readers to locate the book. What would you suggest replace this? Further, there are numerous authors associated with Wikipedia who have self-published fiction and non-fiction books even including fiction titled Roza Bal. You have no difficulties with those, nor with their links to amazon. If they are in compliance here, I am sure we can be too. Please advise me how you would like the reference to this important book to appear here. If there is a special formula, please show me. The presence of a link to a reliable, up to date and well researched history of Roza Bal is much needed here. Why would you NOT want it to apear? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I always have difficulties with self-published books and links to Amazon. When I see them I delete them. It's unusual for a book to have be both self-published and properly published. I suggest you just list the book with both publishers and put a note on the talk page (and in the edit summary say 'see talk page'. If you include the ISBN13 number users can click on it and find the book - you need to do it this way -- ISBN 978-1413304541. dougweller (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Deep sigh of relief here. I will go back and redo the page(s) as you suggested. Thank you and Happy Valentine Day. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller"

The statement:

"...The Lost Tomb" by Suzanne Olsson is the most recent historical and factual research into the histrocity of the tomb..." this is POV and shameless self promotion and marketing, if the book needs to be mentioned just put it in a list of books regarding the topic.

histrocity is also misspelled.

-jb3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.175.62 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Today I undid an edit made by someone here (as seen above) who also accused me of "shameless self promotion" then deleted that reference. May I please point out to same person that you allowed to remain a fictional book that has been based upon my non-fiction, a book that was self-published for years before being picked up by a small publisher in India, but remains self-published in the USA...the author (I refer to "The Roza Bal Line" by Shawn Haigins) "shamelessly" inserted his book in numerous topics around Wikipedia....while mine, also picked up by a small publisher in India, is still being hassled here at Wikipedia. I have nothing against Shawn personally. I am merely pointing out the hypocracy of the edits being made here and at the "Yuz Asaf" page. If this continues, I will make a formal complaint to higher authorities at Wikipedia, rewrite and update the entire article , and request that the page be locked. I hope you understand and see the irony in these kinds of spiteful edits and comments. Thank youSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Roza Bal

[[Mr. Dougweller- you have deleted everything I just contributed- claiming "COI" for justification...Looking over the rules and pointers about COI, I do not agree with your decision. Here are some of the reasons why: 1.) You allow the Tomb of Jesus website to remain a contributor and have their links on numerous pages here, yet not one of the creators has ever been to India, or the the tomb. They have never researched it, made a film, nor written a book. (I have, and I was the first to put into print the correct definition for 'Yuz Asaf' as 'son of Jospeh'). They have no special skills or knowledge about the tomb,the founder was a bus driver in Chicago, who passed it on to businessman in Toronto, who passed it on to a bank teller in London..who keeps the website updated as best he can. Their interests are religious, and you support this. I recently acquired the domain 'rozabal.com.' This is relevent to several topics including "Jesus in India', 'Roza Bal tomb', 'bloodline of Jesus', and Yuz Asaf. I have been trying to locate and update old dead links at Wiki, and update info as and where I can. I understand COI and have tried to avoid those pitfalls. The contributions I made are for benefit of researchers and not for self aggrandizement or spam...If it were self- promotion I would be all over Wiki inserting links everywhere, as so many others have done and continue to do, whom you always manage to ignore....You seem to take special interest in me. Why is that Doug? If you want to help, then please do tell me how to insert and update the links without "Offending" your ideas about COI. ]] SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneOlsson (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal Conflicts

My new domain, rozabal.com, just went 'live' about 3 weeks ago. I have been trying to get that domain for years! Do you know why Doug? Because that is my main research field for over ten years. A Shroud of Turin website would aptly be named 'Shroud of Turin" (actually it is named 'shroud' and Barry Shwartz, its founder, has a huge presence here at Wiki, where he also keeps links and info current and up to date) in the same way I have been attempting to update sites where this is relevant. Roza Bal topic at Wiki is one of the key places people look for information about Roza Bal. There are maybe 4 people in the entire world who can contribute to this topic. I am one of them, and have been for over 10 years, and so of course my name is coming up everywhere this topic comes up. Several years ago Dougweller and I clashed over this topic. At that time Doug believed it was a 'fringe' wacko theory and didn't want it to have any presence at Wikipedia.From then till Doug has taken over the Roza Bal page, being sure to delete every legitimate lead, reference, further reading, films, et cetera. The other day I tested this by posting links to several other books on the same topic, books written by other investigators. Doug deleted all of them. Roza Bal appears to be an obscure topic supported by a lone group of Ahmaddis, whom Doug does tolerate but only after arguments with him years ago. All the latest mainstream films and books and web pages are deleted from this site. Doug has relentlessly followed me around Wikipedia to argue, delete, and comment on everything I do here. I'm afraid to make any contributions! At the top of this page in bright red letters is a 'warning' about harassment.Doug,I consider you harassing me. This has nothing to do with Roza Bal anymore. You have taken this to a whole new personal level. How can you determine that it's OK for the Tomb of Jesus website to remain on the page? How can you allow Fida Hassnain, my co-author to remain on this page (and in other Wiki pages) as a source and reference, but not me? How can you allow the TOJ and Ahmaddi views and sources remain on the page, places that have used me as a source reference for years, but you do not tolerate me or my web site, regardless who posts the info or the web site www.rozabal.com. Even if the contribution is made by my grandaughter or legitimately someone in China, you are clearly prejudiced and blindsided. You couldn't make that any more obvious than in your posts here. You have become the worse kind of Wiki editor. Shame on you Dougweller.]] SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fictional Book and Support of Author website

I might point out here that an author and friend, Ashwan Sanghi, has a page up for a self-published fictional book about Roza Bal tomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rozabal_Line. At the amazon.com website for my book about Roza Bal, http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Kashmir-The-Lost-Tomb/dp/1419611755, he clearly credits me and my research as the inspiration and ideas for his fictional books.I do not see this page being harassed, deleted, or altered in any way, nor should it be.

It's clearly a notable book - when you get the attention he does, then you might get an article. That doesn't affect our general policy towards self-published works. And please, section headings start and end with just ==, nothing else. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Really Doug? What is your policy toward self-published works? And what determines how he got this "attention"? And what about book sales? I thought that's what really determined a "notable book." At this moment h hasn't sold a book in months and his sales rank at amazon is well below a million. My book ranks 57th. I also added numerous titles for further reading about Roza Bal, all by other authors. These were deleted. WhY? The only possible association is because they were submitted by me. They are important contributions to this topic, yet deleted because I made them, and for no other reason. If all submissions and corrections MUST be made by others, that is easy to accomplish. I am sure 90% of all pages here at Wiki are done that way, by a wife or a grandchild or a friend.I know of dozens of other pages personally that were created that way. What my concern is, no matter who or where the entry comes from, how do you determine "deletion"? Seems to be a personal choice for individual editors under all circumstances. By what criteria are you determining 'relevancy"? Something from this group or person is acceptable abut Roza Bal, but not 'that' group or person? This is where your logic fails me.

The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. Roza Bal is an example of a poorly written page. When I do try to improve and edit it,to expand on it, I get knocked right down, COI always being the reason. But I didn;t create the page. I have no idea who did. Apparently even if someone in India links to my page or book, it gets removed, especially if there is a remote reference to me. You just said it Doug "If I get the attention that Ashwan Sanghi does". You have no idea the back story behind all this! Nor is this the place to discuss it. But your demeaning comments clearly indicate your personal feelings toward me (and I'm sure it's not affection). There is much that can be included on the Roza bal page to make it powerful and draw people in such as the political and religious wrangling over the tomb, or the fact that it generates more income for the local private "Trust" second only to the entire budget for the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir. That's a lot of rupees! Do you know how many visitors come to Roza Bal each year? How many additional books about the place? How many documentary films? What religious relics were in the tomb that led people to conclude it was the tomb of Jesus? No. And no one will ever know because of Wiki "editors" making poor judgement calls. I would like to present this page about the Talpiot Tomb.

[Tomb](see 'Talpiot Tomb').It is very well written and provides a detailed history of this alleged tomb of Jesus. Could anyone with a COI have contributed to this information? How might any Wiki editor know this for a fact? Now I ask you to compare that Wiki page with this Wiki page about the Roza Bal, another alleged tomb of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Bal (see 'Roza Bal Tomb')

Roza Bal merits every bit as much information as Talpiot tomb. I inserted links to at least five other books that included info about Roza bal, and all were deleted by Wiki editors who happen to think I am contributing to 'fringe' theories-or that I am not "notable" enough, when clearly these are meant to be hindrances flamed by some editors personal prejudices or religious beliefs.. A few million people in India revere the tomb, as do a few million Ahmadii Muslims. There is ample documentation about the tomb, court cases that go back 500 years,there are also relics, books and film documentaries. There have been murders and deaths and threats of terrorism surrounding the tomb. It generates almost as much income as the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir. A very interesting page could be (and should be) assembled with all this information about Roza Bal, but because of the prejudice of just a few Wiki editors, the Roza Bal page cannot get past a paltry four meager paragraphs. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneOlsson (talk • contribs)

I think Ms Olsson is complaining about Wikipedia policies here, as much as anything else. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss Wikipedia policy such as WP:Fringe, of course. Given the above, Craigslist may be a better venue to self-promote Ms Olsson's ideas for Wikipedia policies are unlikely to change. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yuz Asaf Name Researched in Afghanistan

Mr. Dougweller- Since you seem to be extremely concerned about COI entries, especially made by an author or someone with personal firsthand knowledge about a topic, would it resolve these issues if the very same information was submitted by someone else, preferably far away in a different State or country? Would that then put your mind at ease? For the life of me I cannot imagine how all these sites appear n Wikipedia that are clearly made by those with personal interest in the topic...Tis a fine line ... SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneOlsson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Ms. Olsson needs to read WP:MEAT.... History2007 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think History2007 is making insinuations that have no place here. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not insinuate, I am upfront, and think that given your comment, you need to read WP:MEAT. And as stated above, I also think Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion, and you may find Craigslist a more suitable medium. The only thing you have not done here is add an 800-number for ordering your book. Your complaints seem to be as much about Wikipedia policies as anything else. History2007 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Clear Vandalism of the Roza Bal Page

The article about Roza Bal has been edited in a most misleading and prejudicial way! The editor History2207 has changed key sentences to clearly reflect badly on the tomb's historicity. Further, to write that "some Ahmadis hold that the Roza Bal structure is not the tomb of Jesus, but a monument to his earlier proposed visit to the location before his crucifixion." This is either a bold faced lie or gross ignorance of what the Ahmaddi faith is all about. There is not an Ahmaddi on earth who would make such a claim! In addition, looking over the list of "references" it is clear that most are not pertinent to the tomb in any way.By making these edits, History2007 has shown a huge ignorance of the entire topic, and a huge prejudice against this topic, and has deliberately posted misleading information and outright lies. You have probably now upset several million Muslims...I will let them edit the pages, and deal with you. What a shameful way to destroy the Roza Bal page! SuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Funnily enough that statement comes from a WP:RS source published by Rowman & Littlefield, unlike your self-published source. Now, you need to read:

• WP:SPA
• WP:V
• WP:RS
• WP:Walls of text

and follow Wikipedia policy. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Copied text deleted from article

The association of Jesus with Roza Bal tomb is also found in "Tarikh-i-Kashmir, The History of Kashmir" by Mulla Nadri, written in 1420 A.D. After describing the tomb of Rozabal, he writes that :

"I have seen in a book of Hindus that this prophet was really Hazrat Isa (Jesus), the spirit of God,on whom be peace (and salutations) and had also assumed the name of Yuzu Asaph (one interpretation of this is 'son of Joseph', a term also used in neighboring Afghanistan). The real knowledge is with God. He spent his life this (valley). After his departure (his death) he was laid to rest in Mohalla Anzmarah (modern Khanyar, where Rozabal is). It is also said that lights of prophet-hood used to emanate from the tomb of this Prophet."

Who says this is where Rozabal is? How do we verify this quotation? Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no indication in that text that it is the same location unless Mulla Nadri had specified the coordinates, mentioned a few towns near there, or something of that type. History2007 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of WP:RS sources

I see a few less than WP:RS sources here again. Based on this and the publisher's site I think Aziz Kashmir's book is not a WP:RS source, and Aziz Kashmir seems to be a local person there and not a scholar of note. Some of the material seems to come from Suzanne Olsson's book sans reference. Either a WP:RS source for that needs to be provided, or it needs to go. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of the further reading items, over 50% were not WP:RS and had to go; and I added ISBNs for some others, etc. in any case. Ram Chandra Kak's book is from 1933, may be too old to be WP:RS. I think Hassnain's books may just be ok, but he must be having fun with his publisher, for sure. There are reports on the web that Blue Dolphin is ripping off its own authors, not paying royalties, etc. Some publisher that is... But that is another story... History2007 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have been aware for several years about the misunderstandings over royalties. However, I can also site mainstream authors making the same complaints about large publishing house Like Simon and Schuster. I have the jpg of the footprints from nside roza bal...How do I upload the pictures? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

History2007, I would like to send you a private message. No I promise I wont ask you for date or a loan. I checked your page but no way to contact you there. please direct me. Thank You.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept private messages on Wikipedia, from anyone. History2007 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's probably best for you History2007.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

More items with less than WP:RS sourcing

After all the discussion about sourcing, in this edit, more unsourced and purely speculative items (including youtube) and other items already discussed were added. I did not revert them right away not to start an edit war, but this can not go on. The more we talk about WP:RS, the more unsourced items we get. This is turning to be a user-behavior issue on the part of Ms. Olsson, and needs to be addressed. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

===WHOA! Stop right there Mr. History2007...the youtube links were to films made by the Government of India and the BBC...do I need to bring up hundreds of Wiki pages with youtube links? you also deleted a link to the valuable book by Aziz Kashmir because you felt it was "too old" and not available. It is available in India. Have you ever been to India? I think their current population is approaching a billion people. THEY have access to the book, and many of them look to Wiki for this kind of information. And you inference that I posted information "clearly" from my book is also meant to prejudice other editors reading here. Have you ever read my book? Can you cite the exact page where those quotes allegedly came from? If not, then clearly you should not make such statements.Had you been more civil I was going to explain to you the sources are coming, but I just lost my son and have funeral arrangements to make.I will post the sources but I needed a little time to go through the 3,000 books here to get the exact page numbers..I asked you for some time and understanding. That's all. You are clearly in error here, and clearly showing your personal prejudices.. SuzanneOlsson

I have not been aware of your personal life issues, of course. And in that case my condolences. We will wait until your personal issues are handled in real life, then resume.

I will, however, just note that your book states (word for word): "In the tomb was a strange piece of wood, now stripped of any jewels and decorations, which had been described as a crucifix or cross" and that "2,000 year old footprints carved in solid black rock at Roza Bal tomb show how crucifixion wounds would appear asymmetrical. This would only be obvious to those who actually witnessed the crucifixion or saw the unusual scar pattern" And that was what I meant by material coming into the page (sans source) that looks like it came from your book. By the way, I noticed that the new version of your book is called "Roza Bal: Beyond the Da Vinci Code". That was an interesting item to note. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your condolences. he died 3 days ago-oops 4 days ago. I have been editing at Wiki to get my mind off the funeral when ever possible. He was 43 years old. Now about the book...the quotes you mentioned from my book is information contained in most every book about Roza Bal. It is a description of the interior. I didn't invent that description. It exists. Fida Hassnain asked me to co-author a book with him, which became the Roza Bal, Beyond the DaVinci Code". I believe he produced the same book under several titles in India and here. I only contributed the last section about DNA. The book got several good reviews, then one really bad review by someone from a forum, and has not sold since then. Have you noticed I have made no effort to request that book be included here? I only ask that the links we original settled on years ago remain, and that includes my book and web site (Not originally submitted by me). Meanwhile, on 12-12-12- I released the final revision of my book, "Jesus in Kashmir.." It is a complete overhaul and rewrite with the most emphasis on cultural terrorism in an effort to save the tombs. A week ago it was noted in the Press that the tomb of Joseph the Patriarch was again attacked and desecrated. I point to the similar fate awaiting Roza Bal. The page about Roza Bal was reduced to a mere 4 small paragraphs at Wiki, at a time when Roza Bal was in the news worldwide- even as mentioned in the Lonely Planet article. Yet when people come to Wiki, they get nothing of value about Roza Bal. But the history of Roza bal is complex and interesting, and goes back 2,000 years.Information posted here could help make people aware of the danger its in. Way back when the TOJ group posted their links here, my book and web site were included. We collaborated a lot to get the latest information out to the world. I was fresh from India and knew the situation better than anyone. I shared that info freely and several web sites, films, news articles, and books spun off from my original contributions. It only became controversial when I personally tried to contribute to update links and expand information about the tomb. Now it has escalated into some personal war and regardless what I contribute, it will be deleted..I thank you for reading the book. I hope you got that info from the actual book and not one of the pirated sites online. If I can help you obtain the latest (and definitely last) revision, please let me know. I believe the Roza Bal tomb is the real grave of Jesus and I believe all the evidence supports that view. Anything that can be done here at Wiki and elsewhere to draw people towards that evidence and the true history of the tomb is valuable and helpful. Editors who delete all this out are not helpful. If I am going to be barred and fought at every step, then someone else will step in and make the Roza Bal page the very best it can be, even if that means continued battles with Doug Weller, who may regard every contributor as my grandchild or paid accomplice. Believe it or not, that is not always true. There are others who feel the same as I do and are allowed to express their support. It's not always some evil collusion. Dragging it down only for personal vendettas is just plain wrong, and that's exactly what's been happening here. It appears that Doug Weller is determined to draw me into some major COI where he feels justified in deleting or blocking me...He certainly is trying hard to do just that, not for COI but for personal reasons. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this page before and resisted editing. I haven't edited any of the Jesus-in-India pages for 2 years I think. The various Kerala-Jewish origins and Thomas-in-India ones already being less WP:FRINGE. This article is in dire need of calling in PiCo to scythe it. And please be warned (Suzanne Olsson) WP:NPA are not acceptable. The issue here is WP policies, please don't personalize it. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Structure first, section theories by chronology; add Levi H. Dowling remove Aziz Kashmir

I first removed the giant unsourced 28 Jan content. Then sectioned the remaining content and put the actual structure section at the top. Then I added J. Gordon Melton. Added Levi H Dowling whom Melton mentions. Then I removed Aziz Kashmir - can't see anything to suggest that this has any WP:RS characteristics or who the author is. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A very good restructuring. The only other thing to clarify would be if Notovitch mentioned Roza Bal or not. I am not sure if he did. I can check, but you probably already know. And did the idea start in the 18th or 19th century? I do not know of an 18th century item.

By the way, I wish you would just add the same logical structure to the Lost years of Jesus page, because the lede is now stable, one section there has many un-ref tags on it. So the two may get cleaned up together. That page is now semi-protected after some other brouhaha, so can be handled.

And based on your edits, I think the tags can be removed now, since you have already cleaned it up pretty well. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge

Propose the merge of 2006 above be enacted. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• 'Merge I also support just doing the merge. History2007 (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I also support the merge, and have for years! Without Roza Bal there can be no need to mention YUz Asaf. In Afghanistan the name means "son of Joseph" by tradition. This should be included as there is no other possible definition. I would also mention the original tomb was painted a shade of blue mentioned specifically in Jewish texts only, and used by them to this day. It was obtained by mixing color from a local plant but I dont recall which one. I would also include the relics, there were approximately 5 or 6. They appear in photos in most of the books written about the tomb. They include the Rod, the written history maintained by the Rishis, who copied the original over every few centuries to preserve them (this ancient document is now in possession of the Government of India). The Rod was placed in a special extra long casket that was also original to the tomb. This is vital info as Hebrews buried anything associated with 'God' in cemeteries and tombs rather than discard anything, which was (and is) considered a sacrilege). Of course the carved feet with the crucifixion wounds would be the most critical relic, especially because the wounds match the Shroud of Turin. This is what leads people to conclude there is a connection with Jesus. The "sword in the stone", the wooden cup, the carved "alter", and the sarcophagus itself should all be included as original relics, plus the fact that the actual bodies are under the tomb floor, not within the tomb itself. Reference goes back to the 18th century, when the tomb was mentioned by the Grand Mufti in 1747.This was in regard to wrangling over ownership of the tomb which was already generating huge sums of money from pilgrims. It was then mentioned that it was the tomb of a prophet identified as Yuz Asaf (son of Joseph) who is also identified with crucifixion wounds. The Book of the Bee is considered Apocrypha but contains details about the Rod in Jesus' possession, and dates from the 4th century. The Bahavia Mahapurana contains reference from the First Century, not naming Jesus specifically, only identifying him as a prophet. I would include as many supporting books as possible, even Aziz Kashmiri because although not widely available, his book can be located in India once people are made aware of it. He died 2 years ago at a very advanced age. His book is valuable for several reasons, including mention of a grave for King David's son nearby. This matches the Biblical description of the son (or was it grandson? I have two look again). No one else to my knowledge has included this valuable information and I know some recent researchers in India are investigating that now. (above edit by SuzanneOlsson).

The only source about the muslim holy man buried there is Muhammad Azam 500 years after he was buried so it doesn't require a whole article. A shame the Waqiat i Kashmir only exists in Persian and Urdu. But anyway will leave it for 24hr then merge. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Page improvements

The page looks really wonderful now. The pictures and film links should be added. I wrote to India Film Board and asked for their suggestions. As soon as I get a reply, I'll let you know. I thank you so much for putting the effort in to this page. Although mention is included that some authors write this is a legend on the scale of Joseph of Arimathea, I disagree and believe they did not do diligence in investigating the age of the tomb, the position of the Government of India, and the supporting relics and documents. For fair and balanced reporting these must be included so people have a clear understanding why the theory exists at all. The relics of Roza Bal should take center stage. They are more conclusive evidence even than anything found by Tabor and Jacobovici! Who ever helped and did this page over, thank you. You are hugged and blessed. If you would like a copy of my (worthless self published) book which contains all this information as well, please contact me and I'll get it, or the EBook version to you. Thank You. Thank You. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just send a large wire transfer to In ictu oculi, department of page improvement, Republic of Wikipedia. He did very well. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading the comment above again, I think In ictu oculi did very well, but I do not agree with the further suggestion by Ms Olsson that: "The relics of Roza Bal should take center stage.". I found those relic statement which have now been deleted totally laughable - as well as lacking in WP:RS sources. The most uninformed one is probably the original research implication that a Rosary (as well as a Crucifix) was somehow related to it as a relic. Whichever shopkeeper cooked up that story was probably under the impression that the Rosary is some type of an early Christian symbol and did not know that it dates to the 13th-14th century. One thing is certain: Jesus had never seen a Rosary and neither had Augustine, nor John Damascene - the History of the rosary is in good shape now after clean up, just read that. This type of childish shop keeper inference is what bothers me about half-baked self-published material. Perhaps word can be sent to the shop keepers there to cut back on that story? History2007 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

History2007, I regret that I made quick contributions with intention to return and add sources slowly as time allows. That gave you the opportunity to tear down everything I contributed and include you accusatory and belittling remarks instead. I thought I explained that I was getting the sources, but apparently I should have used a different approach. I truly regret your choice of wording about "half-baked self published authors" (obviously me). The whole Roza Bal article is once again reduced to prejudicial jibberish representing the attitude this is a fringe topic not worthy of Wikipedia. That is not true, judging from the page views, people are interested and do try to gain info from Wiki, but anything useful has been edited out or belittled. The mention of Rosary beads or prayer beads that was mocked, are found in most religions. Their origins are not known, perhaps ancient Egypt. The number of beads varies. They are called malas or japa malas in Buddhism, Tasbih or Misbaha in Islam, and a chotki in Eastern Christian churches. . They exist throughout Central Asia in depictions along the Old Silk Road. There are numerous historical articles about this on the Internet, and page at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_beads. Your statement and ridicule were misplaced and totally uncalled for. I will continue this under the 'relics' section below..~~ Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

The outsourcing of shrines and relics

After the above, I did some more searches for photos, claimed markings and relics, etc. and it seems that all of it is really less than half-baked, unreliable and without historical basis. Overall I think the situation here is quite simple:

• The construction of shrines and the fabrication of relics to attract tourists, i.e. pilgrims, has been an industry in Europe for centuries. While experts debate whether Jesus was crucified with three or with four nails, at least thirty (yes thirty!) nails claiming to be the nails used in the crucifixion continue to be venerated as relics across Europe. The situation was so bad that Erasmus complained about the large number of churches claimed to have been constructed from the wood from the cross used in the crucifixion of Jesus.

• The Jesus mystery book business in the US (say Dan Brown) has also been a major industry in its own right. And naturally, people will try to follow that.

• Now, along with computer services and tech support, some of this business is getting outsourced to elsewhere in the world, e.g. India. The Rosary relic at Roza Bal is of course laughable, but in time new material will just be unearthed, and will be more professionally fabricated. I am sure of that. The success of the The Rozabal Line book may also be seen as copycat version of Dan Brown's story telling.

So I think we should just expect new tombs, new relics and new books to appear. Did Jesus go to Tamil Nadu to visit Apostle Thomas? Did he leave one of his sandals there? What about the Dhaba where Jesus ate along the way? Did he multiply food there? Etc., etc., etc. And all of these claimants will of course, try to use Wikipedia as a part of their promotion strategy - every manufacturers tries to have a Wiki presence anyway. So these should just be expected. The shopkeepers at Shingō, Aomori have been somewhat low key, but others may be more aggressive. What needs to be done is to totally insist on scholarly references and not accept anything less. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• You accused me of presenting half-baked fake claims. You made untrue statements about the relics at Roza Bal. You claim you did a search for them on the Internet and they dont exist. This is not true. They have been documented by the Government of India. Fida Hassnain was in charge of this Department for the Government. You also ridiculed his position in this research. regardless what books or evidence is presented, the assumption is made that they are not 'scholarly" enough and these are deleted. This is too unrealistic, especially when compared with "sources" used on other Wiki pages..This is discussed in numerous books on the topic. No Government or historian anywhere has regarded these as fakes created by local shop keepers. You made that assumption completely on your own, and in ways meant to disparage anyone who mentions the relics- "backpackers" and "local shop keepers". This again is shooting from the hip on your part. You delete any books or source material that examines the relics and has photos. You know nothing about the fiction novel, 'The Roza Bal Line." It was self-published then self- promoted all over Wikipedia. Isn't that applying a 'double standard' here? As a wiki editor, you should know better. The author has acknowledged in several places on the Internet and at amazon.com- in HIS own words that he was inspired by my research and my book(s).. Please go to amazon.usa- "The RozaBal Line", and read this in the author's own words. He credits me there. His book is not and never was intended to be a Dan Brown "copy"- it was based on something quite different, on information gathered and published before Dan Brown. "The Da Vinci Code" was published in 2003. I published the first copy of my book in 2001 in Bangkok and maintained web sites with this info since 1998-99. I lived in the region during several wars and bombing of the Bamiyan Buddha. The Afghans were/are considered Jews (Lost Tribes) this is how the whole story comes together about possible descendents of Jesus being terrorists (Taliban-Pashtuns). Myself and Holger Kersten before me requested DNA from Roza Bal tomb. With this we hoped to establish if modern claimants were related to YuzAsaf (whether he proved to be Jesus or not)..This all happened before Dan Brown's book..... ....this was way ahead of Dan Brown. You erred in all your assumptions.

Then in another of your statements, you said that no mainstream scholar anywhere in the world supports the theory that Jesus ever went to India. Well, this is flat out also not true. As one example, Dr. James Tabor earned his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago in 1981 in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, with an emphasis on Christian origins and ancient Judaism, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, John the Baptist, Jesus, James the Just, and Paul of Tarsus. He is well known and respected in the field of religious history. In several documentaries and books he refers to Jesus in India being a very real probability. He makes this statement again on a documentary film...so does Elain Pagels, another esteemed religious scholar.So do others, but you edit out all this information in support of making the idea seem fringe and crackpot.. The author of six books and over 50 articles, Tabor is frequently consulted by the media on these topics and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs. The page about Roza Bal attracts people because they want more information. All they get from Wiki is a few brief words about crackpot theories invented by local businessmen and visited by a few backpackers. How truly sad. The page should be rich and vibrant and full if information including a discussion about the relics.That's why the theory developed in the first place, not because of Notovich, but because of the unusual ancient relics found in the tomb associated with a crucified man of the Bible (the Rod of Moses and the scars on feet). Regardless what your personal opinions are, they are not based on the things most pertinent about the tomb. In the Bible is mention of Jesus seen 12 times after crucifixion. 12 TIMES ! Just start there, and you'll be closer to understanding why people are seeking more information. Better yet, don't edit the Roza Bal page anymore. What is really needed here are fresh new editors with new eyes and more supportive points of view. There are some wonderful Wiki pages about the history of bowling and other sports that would benefit from your style of editing. DougWeller is definitely better suited to those pages as well. I apologize that I dont quite know how to use all the edit features here. I rarely come to Wiki and my lack of skills slows me down and leads to me making several corrections after I view the saved page. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

It appears you have just offended several million Muslims worldwide who venerate the shrine and believe the evidence supports the tomb as YuzAsaf, Jesus. Their founder did scrupulous research and bet his life on the conclusions. Perhaps we should have you also make final judgements about the Shroud of Turin and the Talpiot ossuaries- OH! and the alleged remains of Mary Magdalene and Saint Thomas scattered around Europe, and dont forget the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail. The world has been waiting for you History2007! SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the Japanese shopkeepers who must also be after me following what I said about Shingō. History2007 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua blocked her for a week. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that new Relics section should just be moved towards the end for now because it does not make sense to have it right upfront before Structure and History of Kashmir. Then it eventually either gets WP:RS sourced or goes away. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to be more ruthless. The section is moved here: In ictu oculi (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that in fact. I was not holding my breath that it was going to be sourced soon, just wanted it not distracting upfront. History2007 (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Relics section (moved out)

There were numerous relics found inside the tomb. Some have been stolen, some sold off to agents from other countries. There have been some claims that these relics may be fakes, planted by 13th and 14th century forgers, when relic sales were popular business. The Rosary relic, a simple cross on a string, was used to represent Christianity as early as the first century In 1954 Professor Fida Hassnain became the Director of State Archives, Archaeology Research and Museums. The relics found in the tomb were documented by Hassnain and others over a period of thrity years, and by others who have held the position since then.

not mentioned in Ram Chandra Kak "Ancient Monuments" after all

I found a copy online and linked it. Guess what, no mention of this shrine. When KillerChihuahua's block on SuzanneOlsson expires, maybe the User can provide an actual WP:RS for something, anything relating to the article. In particular some basic information like:

• When was the shrine built?
• When was the shrine first mentioned?
• On what page of Khwaja Muhammad Azam Didamari (d.1765) is Youza Asouph mentioned?
• What is the source for "Syed Nasir-u-Din (buried 1451)"

These are absolute minimal refs for a structure/temple article. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If Kak is just about the history of Kashmir, then does not really apply here anyway. The current structure uses somewhat modern material, so the 2nd question is key. But the overall picture here is that of scarcity of sources and the abundance of ambiguity in the claims. And recall that the area has not exactly been an island of tranquility by any measure. History2007 (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that Ram Chandra Kak "Ancient Monuments" got into the article at all. But I think the fact that he doesn't mention the shrine is worth keeping by default in that it indicates the relative lack of notability, and helps with context. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

14 February Talk edits above

Suzanne, welcome back. Regarding edits above linked for convenience of anyone trying to follow can you please give a page reference for where James Tabor says Jesus in India is a real possibility? because Google Books finds nothing.

This would be question (5) after:

• (1) When was the shrine built?
• (2) When was the shrine first mentioned?
• (3) On what page of the Urdu translation or Persian original of Khwaja Muhammad Azam Didamari (d.1765) is Youza Asouph mentioned?
• (4) What is the source for "Syed Nasir-u-Din (buried 1451)"
  

If you have sources, your contributions are welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi ictu oculi! Nice to see you again..I returned here because I was going to add above that insinuations about Roza Bal being 'half-baked" "crackpot" unsubstantiated theories are offensive remarks to millions of Ahmaddi Muslims worldwide who stake their lives and souls on the accuracy of the tomb. Whether knowingly or not, to make such statements is a back-handed slap across their faces. I really do object to these kinds of insinuations about the tomb, the relics, et cetera. I just saw Tabor on a documentary earlier today. I will try to locate it and provide the link for you here. Elaine Pagels also appears in several. I believe she makes an appearance and a statement about Jesus in India in the Paul Davids film. I will watch it and note down the 'time' when she appears. This way anyone can immediately check the film without having to sit through the whole thing.. Regarding the other questions...I am going to cut and paste them to my desktop and I will try to have the answers for you over the next day or two. I may have to contact some Ahmaddi friends for their help...but I promise you we will give it 100% effort to get you the answers. All the best, Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk)

Thank you. Elaine Pagels, like James Tabor are not mainstream scholars, but they are notable so somewhere I will find a place to lodge a sourced ref for Elaine Pagels. I will do that. Please contact your Ahmaddi friends to find the answers to (1)(2)(3)(4) and indeed any other information that can be sourced and referenced with page numbers in printed sources. If possible ISBN numbers will be helpful with Urdu sources, most mainstream scholarly publications in Pakistan now have these. If not then publication place and year are needed with page number. Good luck. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I posted your questions among some Ahmaddis and expect answers over the next 24 hours...Meanwhile, if you care to visit the old TOJ site, there are some valuable links and info. They have done the best job of compiling the information and can best answer your questions....the Bavshaya Mahapurana was written late 1st-early 2nd century and is the very first mention of Jesus in India that has survived. Here is the link: http://www.arifkhan.co.uk/TOJ/core/historical_sources/docs/baha.html

I'm sure you're aware that Jesus did not retain that name (Jesus) his entire life. Nor was it the name given at his birth. It is only the name used in the New Testament: Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Suzanne,

The webpage link misrepresents the "Jesus" references in an 18th Century section of the Bhavishya Maha Purana as being pre-Christian, but there is already a reliable academic source in the wp article on this saying otherwise.

Thanks for taking the questions, I hope we get reliably sourced answers. But please make clear to your friends that page numbers and ISBNs are what we are looking for, not just opinion/hearsay, it must come with a printed and dated source. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I see someone is trying to ban me again..I wonder who is behind it this time? .I have not edited a thing. I have not inserted my web pages or links anywhere..I have not advanced my personal "crackpot" theories. I have spoken out other editors who posted blatant untruths and insinuations and edited out anything that doesn't agree with their POV. I think if anyone reads all the posts, this would be clear immediately. Peace. Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you leave alone actual articles you should not be blocked unless you misuse Talk pages. As a result of being prompted by the webpage you linked I have tightened up edits on the Bhavishya Mahapurana and given a dating from Hiltebeital (2009) who places the Jesus and Mohammed mention as 1732 AD, not BC. You may wish to contact the owner of the webpage to get them to insert Hiltebeil's dating. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead/Structure

I won´t do much editing to this article directly, since I know nothing of the subject and the sources aren´t easily accessible. I have some thoughts/questions, though.
Lead:

• Administration by sunnis and visited by backpackers seems unnecessary here.
• Wikipedias voice should not call anyone "holy". Sage/Wali may be alright if it´s in the sources.

Structure:
I edited this section this a bit, hopefully it not less correct now.

• Should "muslim saint" be wali?
• Can we shorten "The body is buried according to the Jewish tradition of directions and not according to the Islamic tradition." to "The body is buried according to Jewish tradition."?
• I can´t find "Did jesus die" at the link in the references, can it be found online somewhere else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I see the Roza Bal page has begun to attract more editors. Thank you for helping. The page needs a lot of correction and improvements. It is horribly slanted, biased, and supporting little known or inaccurate premises.I am not allowed to edit here. It is assuring to see that others take an interest in fairness and in helping. Even one word, one slant of opinion or misinformation can create a very negative attitude and leave the reader with false impressions. Further, this is a topic of serious dissension among Muslims. Ahmaddis are ostracized, attacked, and killed for their beliefs to this day as we speak. It is imperative to word carefully in such articles. Thank you Wiki editors for your attention to details here. It matters a lot to millions of people. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are numrous documentaries titled 'Did Jesus Die?" I was advised if they appear on YouTube, that cannot appear here because it would be copyright infringement. There is an excellent BBC documentary in which Dr. James Tabor appears several times...at 17.02 minutes, he gets into the discussion about Jesus going 'east' to India to find the Lost Tribes. If you enter the query in a search engine, many links come up. This is result of the Yahoo Search Engine, and the BBC film appears here as well, http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=BBC+Documentary+Did+Jesus+Die%3F...I dont know with certainty if any film can be used as a reference. I dont know Wiki policy. You may make that decision yourself if/when you choose to post a link. I am merely pointing out that a lot has been said about the theory in recent years, and it is certainly 'mainstream' by now. I wish you luck with your contributions. Many thanks. Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, found it (the BBC one)on Youtube, I can at least satisfy my own curiosity. Question to seasoned editors: Say I watch this documentary, and in it I see someone notable say something relevant about Roza Bal that I want to put in the article. How do I cite that in the article in an acceptable way? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I haven't seen it done but probably I would expect and exact transcription of the text (at 4 minutes 24 seconds). But before going to the hassle, maybe it would be best to signal who said what on Talk first.

To occi and all who asked for exact page numbers...I got this reply back with permission to pass the information on to Wiki editors who want to know what were some of the earliest references to Jesus in kashmir- including page numbers: Reference of "Ikmal ud Din" is very clear...

“Then Yuz Asaf, after roaming about in many cities, reached that country which is called Kashmir. He traveled in it far and wide and stayed there and spent his (remaining) life there, until death overtook him, and he left the earthly body and was elevated towards the Light.

“But before his death, he sent for a disciple of his, Ba’bad by name, who used to serve him and was well versed in all matters. He expressed his last will to him and said: ‘My time for departing from this world has come. Carry on your duties properly and turn not back from truth, and say your prayers regularly.’

“He then directed Ba’bad to prepare a tomb over him (at the very place that he died). He then stretched his legs towards the West and head towards the East and died. May God bless him.” (Al-Shaikh Al-Said-us-Sadiq Abi Jaffar Muhammad Ibn-i-Ali Ibn-i-Hussain Ibn-i-Musa Ibn-i-Baibuyah al-Qummi, Ikmal-ud-Din (Kamal-ud Din wa Tmam-un Nimat fi Asbat-ul-Ghaibat wa Kashf-ul-Hairet), (Iran: Syed-us-Sanad Press, 1782, p. 357)).

Now you must keep in mind that Jesus rarely used the name Jesus after crucifixion, and never when he went 'east'- the name YuzAsaf means 'son of Joseph', in India he was also known as Issa. That is why the specific name Jesus is not used here, but it is the same man. The associated relics and other historical comments are what reinforce this. I apologize for the hodge-podge appearance of italics and bold type. I have no idea what I am doing wrong. I'm working on learning the Wiki format. My apologies. 66.177.27.120 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Suzanne, thank you for the page number. The Persian text of Ibn-i-Baibuyah (d.962) was published in 1882 not 1782. This English translation above is Khwaja Nazir Ahmad's 1952 Ahmadi translation. It would be helpful to have the original Persian text so we can see if the Persian refers to Barlaam and Josaphat or to Isa, or whether Ibn-i-Baibuyah has confused Buddha (Yuz Asaf) and Jesus (Isa). In the meantime I will try and track down Max Müller's German translation which he made when exposing the Jesus in India story of Nicolas Notovitch as fradulent. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Section History of Kashmir

This part:
"Some writers (e.g. Naeem Abdullah, 2011[6]) incorrectly claim that Yuz Asaf is mentioned in the Ikmal al-din of Shia authority Ibn Babawayh (d. 991, called "as-Saduq"). In fact Ibn Babawayh does not mention the name Yuz Asaf. Ahmadis also claim that Ibn Babawayh mentions Jesus going to a far country. This Ahmadiyya claim about the Ikmal al-din of Ibn Babawayh is rejected by Shia Muslims."
seems to be outside the subject of this article. Yuz Azaf have his own article. Can we cut it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the post above. I hope it helps explain and gives precise page numbers. Also one must take into consideration the numerous relics found in the tomb, none of which are mentioned in the article, that suggest the man buried within is the same man as the crucified Jesus. If one does not include evidence of the relics, then the whole theory makes no sense. It's like trying to invent the Shroud of Turin theory without a Shroud. Peace. 66.177.27.120 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I see now that Yuz Azaf don´t have an article, I was fooled by the wikilink. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That note Naeem Abdullah, 2011 needs changing out, he's a single non-notable self-published US Ahmadi author among dozens of similar repeating the same 1952 claims of Nazir Ahmad's Woking Muslim Mission book. The Blackwell Companion to Jesus has a section by Per Beskow examining the confusion between "Yuz Asaf" and Barlaam and Josaphat, so a reference from that should replace ref Naeem Abdullah. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

JESUS in Kashmir (India)A book authored in 962 AD "Ikmal ud Din". “Then Yuz Asaf, after roaming about in many cities, reached that country which is called Kashmir. He traveled in it far and wide and stayed there and spent his (remaining) life there, until death overtook him, and he left the earthly body and was elevated towards the Light.But before his death, he sent for a disciple of his, Ba’bad by name, who used to serve him and was well versed in all matters. He expressed his last will to him and said: My time for departing from this world has come. Carry on your duties properly and turn not back from truth, and say your prayers regularly. He then directed Ba’bad to prepare a tomb over him (at the very place that he died). He then stretched his legs towards the West and head towards the East and died. May God bless him.” (Al-Shaikh Al-Said-us-Sadiq Abi Jaffar Muhammad Ibn-i-Ali Ibn-i-Hussain Ibn-i-Musa Ibn-i-Baibuyah al-Qummi, Ikmal-ud-Din (Kamal-ud Din wa Tmam-un Nimat fi Asbat-ul-Ghaibat wa Kashf-ul-Hairet), (Iran: Syed-us-Sanad Press, 1782, p. 357)). My thanks to Muhammad Ali for this contribution. Sunnis and Shias often do not agree. They follow different Hadiths and even different Shariah Laws. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne. Can I confirm this translation is from Ahmad's Jesus in India? English Edition? Please What year/what page number?' The article now has this text, with a note from Per Beskow that suggests Ahmad changed Budasaf (referring to Buddha) from the original 1882 Persian into Yuz Asaf in the Urdu. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes ictu oculi, This can be confirmed by any Urdu- English speaking Ahamddi who has the book. The discussion above that Shias and Sunnis disagree on this topic is moot. They disagree on most everything, even the Hadiths and Shariah Laws. About the use of the word Yuz Asaph ..it was some Korean investigators who associated that name with Budasaf. I had the source for this years ago. Joe Cribb is a famous coin expert at Oxford University. He found coins from the region circa King Gondopharnes that bore inscriptions using the term to mean 'son of' and I believe this appears at some of his web sites. He and I had correspondence for a while, but I dont know if I kept the original sources or not. I would have to look back a few years.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson04:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne, Is the above English translation from Ghulam Ahmad's 1908 English book? What page number is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

ictu oculi, I have shared this with some Ahmaddi friends. Some are asking to contribute directly so they can best answer these questions. In a short while Muhammad Ali will join in...He is a scholar and an expert in this area. He has the books in several languages and several editions. He would be best qualified to answer. Thank you. Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne, okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Section Ahmadiyya claims regarding shrine

• What do Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and/or Khwaja Nazir Ahmad and/or Ahmadiyya religious doctrine (and possibly other Ahmadi) actually claim about Roza Bal? Is it that Jesus is buried here under the name Yuz Asaf after coming to india and dying there at 120 (or that it is a monument to his visit in India)? The article don´t say clearly as of now. Can we nail this down, short and to the point? The bit about the ruins should probably go.

• J. Gordon Melton. Does he mention Roza Bal specifically (and not just whole Jesus-in-India-theory), and if not, should we throw him out of this particular article?

• Gerald O'Collins, same question.

• The text from "Ghulam Ahmad's theory..." up to "20th century" don´t seem to be about Roza Bal specifically, should we throw it out?

• 20:th century. If Khwaja Nazir Ahmad said anything relevant about Roza Bal this century we should make clear what it was.

• Dowling/Kersten. Kersten (according to Wikipedia) mentions Roza Bal, so he should stay, but not under "Ahmadiyya claims regarding shrine".

Dowling or his book (again, according to Wikipedia articles) don´t mention Roza Bal, should we throw them out?

• Have a nice weekend! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, J. Gordon Melton and Gerald O'Collins do specifically cover this. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad has his own article, since Ahmadi beliefs in this area were substantially developed by Khwaja Nazir Ahmad. Accoridng to scholarly sources Holger Kersten is dependent on and repeating Ahmadi claims, he's not individually notable or different, merely one of several western advocates of Khwaja Nazir Ahmad's claims. Unless there's anything substantially new in Holger Kersten that Khwaja Nazir Ahmad hadn't already claimed in 1952? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I must away now, but what do you/others think about this: We rename this section "Jesus Christ" (Several claims have been made that the shrine is the burial site of Jesus Christ, main articles Jesus in Ahmadiyya, Swoon theory) , then it doesn´t matter if the notable writer/whatever is ahmadi or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone rename any section "Jesus Christ"? It does matter if the writer is Ahmadi or not, except see WP:NPOV and WP:OR. We can describe Ahmadi views, but per WP:PSTS priority must be given to Secondary and Tertiary Sources.

Likewise on en.wp a German professor of Sanskrit is given more authority on interpretation of Sanskrit texts than a Spanish editor of a self-published UFO magazine (just to compare 2 members of the cast in this story). That's how WP:IRS works In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I wish I could hug every one of you! Thank you for taking the time to analyze the Roza Bal page. It is read by millions worldwide (just check the stats)It deserves better coverage and more historical accuracy and expansion, and you seem to be getting it there. Thank you. About the Ahmadiyya statements, Quadian Pakistan is home of the founder of the Ahmaddiis, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908). This is in the Punjab, near Amristar and very near to current border with Kashmir. I have been there often. Ahmad had heard stories about the tomb of "Issa" and about the relics nearby. He sent six (? I think that is the right number) men to investigate. After several months the men returned with reports about the tomb, the relics, the documents, and the local history. This was absorbed into the beliefs of the Ahmadiis. They did not invent these. Their main idea- openly admitted- was/ is to show Christians the errors of Christianity and bring them to Islam. They did NOT invent the tomb or relics, but incorporated the ideas into their faith. There is a huge difference here. Fida Hassnain served as Head of the History-Archaeology Department of Kashmir History for the Government of India for 30 years. In that 30 years he had ample time to discredit the Ahmaddis..to prove they made the whole thing up. However, since so much supported their beliefs rather than discredit them, he became a believer and wrote several books about the relics. He stated in several books the tomb was first mentioned in the late 1st or early 2nd century. He has not yet produced the source..I was led to believe it was an obscure ancient document in the Archives. Unless and until that is verified, it remains illusive. The next verifiable mention is the court case of 1776. This document is part of the Historical archives of Government of India.It describes a court case over custody of the tomb and relics, claiming it is the grave of a saint or prophet named Yuz Asaph (son of Joseph as the term is used historically in that region), visited by high and low for centuries (predating Islam). It generated a large income. I might point out too that there are other examples of Muslims controlling Christian and Hebrew tombs. The Cave of the Patriarchs, the graves of Abraham and Sarah, the tomb of Joseph the Patriarch, and the site of the Dome of the Rock, the Second Jewish Temple are all now under Muslim control. What happened at Roza Bal is not unusual. It is a really close call who went to investigate the tomb legends first. Notovich published his book in 1894. Ahmad had the knowledge but did not immediately publish. His treatise was completed in 1899 but was not published until shortly after Ghulam Ahmad’s death in 1908, having been only partly serialised in the 'Review of Religions' between 1902 and 1903. The first complete English translation was published in 1944. It is possible that in that region the tomb was common knowledge and discussed by many. Notovich and Ahmad were within a stone's throw of one another at times. Each may have known of the other. Previously, the first mention other than the court case was the History of Kashmir by the Sufi poet Khwaja Muhammad Azam Didamari (1747) that the holy man Yuz Asaf buried there was a prophet and a foreign prince. This was 30 years before the court case mentioned above.66.177.27.120 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne "court case of 1776." This document is part of the Historical archives of Government of India.It describes a court case over custody of the tomb and relics, claiming it is the grave of a saint or prophet named Yuz Asaph (son of Joseph as the term is used historically in that region), .........is this court case mentioned in any printed source? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear ictu oculi, yes the court decree is part of the Historical Archives that were original to Srinagar. Much has been removed to the Delhi Museum for protection and restoration. When you ask is it in print, the answer is yes. What additional sources would be needed? Hassnain has a copy of the original and it has been seen by other authors and referenced in their books. If you look above this post, I also added the source and page numbers you asked for regarding Ikmal-ud-din for the quote about Jesus appearing in JESUS in Kashmir(circa 962 AD-long before the Ahmaddi claims).Best wishes, Sue. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Suzanne, okay so which books mention the court case in 1776? As always what is needed is author/title/ISBN/year/page number.

Yes thank you for the page number of the Persian printing of Ikmal-ud-din although it the actual quote is about Yuzasaf, i.e. Buddha Gautama from the Yuzasaf legend, not Isa (Jesus). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ictu Oculi, to answer your query above, the book I am using as source for the moment (there are others I dont have access to now) is THE FIFTH GOSPEL by Fida Hassnain, Dastgir Publications, Srinagar, Kashmir, Printed by Leo Printers of Delhi, 1988.(there is no ISBN on this edition). Pp. 222-223: "The Seal of The Justice of Islam Mullah Fazil 1194-A.H. Verdict: Now this Court, after obtaining evidence, concludes that during the reign of Raja Gopadatta,(Gondopharnes, the king visited by Saint Thomas at the same time) who built and repaired many temples, especially the Throne of Solomon,(an inscription was left here by Jesus and Thomas, which was recently obliterated by local fundamentalists. A photo of this same inscription appears in the same book- photo taken before the scripts were obliterated) Yuza Asaph came to the Valley. Prince by decent, he was pious and saintly...and was buried at Khanyar on the banks of the lakeand his shrine is known as Roza Bal." I hope this answers your query adeqyuately. Peace and have a great day. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Suzanne, thanks. Re that court document can you please confirm 1184AH/1770AD or 1194 AH/1780 AD?

The Seal of The Justice of Islam Mullah Fazil 1194-A.H. Verdict: Now this Court, after obtaining evidence, concludes that during the reign of Raja Gopadatta, who built and repaired many temples, especially the Throne of Solomon Yuza Asaph came to the Valley. Prince by descent, he was pious and saintly ... and was buried at Khanyar on the banks of the lake and his shrine is known as Roza Bal. In the year 871 A.H. Syed Nasir-ud-Din, a descendant of Imam Musa-Raza, was also buried besides the grave of Yuz-Asaph. Orders - Since the shrine is visited by devotees, both high and common, and since the applicant, Rehman Khan, is the hereditary custodian of the shrine, it is ordered that he be entitled to receive the offerings made at the shrine as before, and... " Fida Hassnain, The Fifth Gospel, Dastgir Publications Srinagar, Kashmir, Printed by Leo Printers of Delhi, 1988 Pp. 222-223

This is effectively confirmed by citation in Mark Bothe Die "Jesus-in-Indien-Legende" - Eine alternative Jesus-Erzählung? 2011 - Page 53 so given that it appears to be the earliest historical testimony to a shrine to the the Bilawhar wa-Yudasaf legend in Srinagar is worth putting in the article. It also illustrates the structure's history. Is the building in 1780AD the same as the one today, or has it been rebuilt? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the courtcase is a splendid addition to this article! It mentions the shrine and the people buried, perfect. I´m removing the text after the translation, it seems like a linguistic discussion outside the scope of the article subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The linguistic text was actually copied across from the main Yuzasaf article (where it wasn't sourced) plus the French source I added. It is pretty central to the notability of this structure. The various early references to the Yuzasaf tradition in Kashmir, and the court case, use variant Arabic/Persian/Urdu spellings Yuzasaf/Yudasaf. It appears to be central to the Sunni/Shia vs Ahmadi dispute on the identity of the Yuzasaf tradition attached to this structure. Also the spelling similarity won't be apparent to someone with no knowledge of Arabic script. If anything information is too little rather than too much and Suzanne's Ahmadi contact Dr Ali (below) may help to provide more. This is discussed in Per Beskow's Swedish book btw. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think it belongs, I won´t fight you on it. The discussion about translation, sanscrit and letters seem off-topic to me though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way Iio, what do you think about changing "Ahmadiyya claims regarding shrine" to "Jesus" or "Grave of Jesus?" to make the section-title a little more inclusive? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more that Per Beskow thinks it belongs. Let's see what Dr Ali comes up with. "Ahmadiyya claims regarding shrine" is what is in academic sources. This isn't Jesus' grave, we aren't going to title a section in a way that suggests it is. That's what Suzanne's website is for, this is an encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But this section now contains claims from UFO-ologists etc. That makes the title just wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You´re of course right we don´t want to suggest Jesus is buried there. But "Ahmadiyya claims" is not inclusive enough considering what´s in that section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but we have reliable academic sources saying in black and white that Faber-Kaiser, Holger Kersten and so on are just repackaging Ghulam Ahmad's ideas. That makes all these claims Ahmadi claims. Per Beskow is emphatic on this point.

Back to another subject (below). I'm guessing as you're Swedish you also read German, take a look at Historia animae utilis de Barlaam et Ioasaph (spuria): Einführung p.156. Ghulām Ahmad aber scheint ganz selbständig eine Manipulation von Yūdāsafzu Yūzāsafvorgenommen zu haben, und sie ist für ihn höchst wichtig: Das Grab in Srinagar wurde seit Jahrhunderten als dasjenige des Yūzāsaf (nicht des Yūdāsaf .. The description by Klatt of the 1883 reading Yudasaf is exactly the opposite of the photocopy our friend Drali says he has. We may need an upload. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It´s nice of you to guess that, but I don´t read german. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

RELICS RELEVANCE

I would once again like to point out that the relics found in the sarcophagus are the whole reason the assumption exists that Jesus is buried there. The original sarcophagus (since removed) and the relics were inside Roza Bal tomb for centuries. They are an integral part of the entire Roza Bal significance. Otherwise, there is little in the written texts to indicate how the links to YuzAsa/ Jesus were established. Thank You Dr. Ali for your contributions here. I do not speak or write Arabic very well, nor do I have access to the valuable sources that you are aware of. I am unable to answer all thier questions regarding written sources. Thank You for helping the other Wiki editors here. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I must ask, why is your signature always sort of tripled? It looks weird. Anyway, these relics (that sound very interesting). What I see in my head, as a start, is a new section, "Relics", after "Building". It will be very short at first (About the same length as "History of Kashmir" section), possibly becoming a subarticle later if there are WP:RS:s to base it on. This short section will say something like: "According to (best RS that can be found), several relics are/were placed in the shrine. According to (best RS that can be found) these relics were placed in the shrine when Jesus was buried here." HOWEVER, if there are no WP:RS that say this, we can´t have that section. Are you willing to suggest wording and citing to this suggestion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I just lost the entire reply. I will start again.In India, rishis were the first to write down the oral tradition of the Vedas. In ancient times the rishis were at all courts and municipalities. They were the only ones who could read and write ins several languages, well trained in a guild sort of arrangement. There was a document found in Roz bal tomb - had been copied and replaced for centuries by the rishi guild-and was found wrapped around the Rod. The rod was removed and taken as a 'souvenir' and eventually came to rest at Aish Muquam in Kashmir. It is there to this day. The document that gives details about it remained among the archives in Srinagar. It was one of the documents that Hassnain was responsible for when he headed that Department. I asked him for a translation and it took him many weeks to relocate the document and send me the translation.I believe that I was the first person ever to put that into print, but of course that is not valid here. The document said this rod was with Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesse, King David, and Jesus. So unless Yuz Asaph had the exact same grandfathers as Jesus, then they must be one and the same man. My suggestion is to find out who is now filling Hassnain's position at the Archives, and ask for independent corroboration. Things like this are what subtsantiate the claims that Jesus is buried there. These are suchh vital links. I am so glad that you are taking an interest inn having them considered. I or anyone can track the document down, but tis probably best if done by someone else. What do you suggest? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that if there are no WP:RS about these relics, we don´t mention them. Should some turn up in the future, we can discuss them then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have asked people in Kashmir to locate who is currently in the position as head of Archives. I will get independent verification of the document, but it may take a week or so. If I could, I would go there myself....but you are saying what I need is independent confirmation the documents exist. I agree. This is vitally important to me too. Have a nice week end.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead, again

It seems due to add something like "According to Ahmadiyya belief, Jesus Christ is buried here". Thoughts on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes that'd be fine. Provided we're certain 100% of Ahmadis believe this, there was some discussion/source earlier which cast doubt on this. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That comment alarmed me for the obvious reason that it is part of the Ahmaddi faith to believe that Jesus is buried in the Roza Bal tomb. No Ahmaddi would claim otherwise, or he would not be true to his faith. I believe whatever editor made that claim, made it up because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the entire Ahmaddi faith. Also, I would like to pioint out again if the relics are not included as part of this topic, then it doesn't make sense to anyone how people conclude it is Jesus buried there. The relics were found inside the original sarcophagus and tomb, obviously associated with the deceased. They should be an integral part of any discussion about Roza bal tomb. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Ok, I´m absolutely NOT certain 100% of any faith believe anything, I hoped my short sentence would be read vaguer than that. Is "According to some Ahmadiyya texts" a possible solution? 09:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs)

Suzanne, do you have a print source that confirms "All Ahmadis believe that Jesus is buried at the Roza Bal"? What is the Title, year, ISBN and page number? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To say that “Jesus is buried in Roza bal Kashmir is a Religious Faith of the 100% Ahmadis, NO. It is not a ‘FAITH’ of the Ahmadiyya Jama’at”. The religious faith is only so much that Jesus did not die on the cross ,[Quran 4:157 (translation by Pickthall) “And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain”.

So according to this Quranic teaching , we Ahmadis believe Jesus survived and died his own natural death. This is the Ahmadiyya Faith. But only as a scholarly research, as to where did Jesus migrate after the event of an attempted crucifixion? Now, here is ONLY a research work carried initially by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) and later many ahmadi and non-Muslim scholars. The research is still not complete with any absolute certainty. But most probably the site of Jesus burial place (as per all currently available sources), is Roza Bal Srinagar Kashmir India.Drali1954 (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (Muhammad Ali)

Thank you Muhammad Ali, so the most that can be said is "some" Ahmadis believe that Jesus is buried at the Roza Bal"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång, we would still need a Title, year, ISBN and page number but it would be easier to find. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Your Q: Did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) change the translation of this text “….. Budasaf (referring to Buddha) from the original 1882 Persian into Yuz Asaf in the Urdu. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)” ??

NO. The Original book (Ikmal ud Din, Arabic) bears no ISDN number. The actual book can be seen here at Khilafat Library Rabwah (Pakistan) Page 595 mentions the story as had been quoted in the English rendering, exactly the same text . I have examined the ORIGINAL Arabic book ‘Ikmal ud Din’ (Published by Shiiah Iran ) and scanned the text. It mentions “YUZ ASAF and KASJMIR” (on pp: 595) not Buddha. I have access to the original book (Arabic) and can provide the images.

Moreover , a Shiiah Muslim Shaikh does not believe Buddha to be a Prophet of Allah, and is writing about an Israelite Prophet. He writes, “He then stretched his legs towards the West and head towards the East and died. May God bless him”. …… Muslims have a particular method of burying their dead. Keep the head in the North and the feet to the South. This is because of the respect for the Ka’aba (situated in the West of Muslim lands like Iran or India etc. But the Jewish graves had a different direction. Burying their dead in the method he has given , this was due to the Jewish respect for the Temple in Jerusalem.

Reference book Title page number:

“Then Yuz Asaf, after roaming about in many cities, reached that country which is called Kashmir. He traveled in it far and wide and stayed there and spent his (remaining) life there, until death overtook him, and he left the earthly body and was elevated towards the Light. But before his death, he sent for a disciple of his, Ba’bad by name, who used to serve him and was well versed in all matters. He expressed his last will to him and said: My time for departing from this world has come. Carry on your duties properly and turn not back from truth, and say your prayers regularly. He then directed Ba’bad to prepare a tomb over him (at the very place that he died). He then stretched his legs towards the West and head towards the East and died. May God bless him.” (Al-Shaikh Al-Said-us-Sadiq Abi Jaffar Muhammad Ibn-i-Ali Ibn-i-Hussain Ibn-i-Musa Ibn-i-Baibuyah al-Qummi, Ikmal-ud-Din (Kamal-ud Din wa Tmam-un Nimat fi Asbat-ul-Ghaibat wa Kashf-ul-Hairet), (Iran: Syed-us-Sanad Press, 1782, p. 357)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drali1954 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Dr Ali,

Can you please transcribe the Arabic name in Ibn Bubayah (يوزاساف) in "Then Yuzasaf after roaming in many cities" here onto the Talk page. And what is the Arabic name for Yudasaf/Yuzasaf in other Arabic sources (بالأوهار ويوداسف)? Do you have an Arabic keyboard? Further - Persian and Urdu spellings, if differing from Arabic, would also be useful if sourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, new attempt at a lead senctence (which is the topic of this thread). "The shrine has recieved some attention because of claims that Jesus Christ is buried here." Let´s leave who and what to the body of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say "Ghulam Ahmad claimed" there's no evidence of any claim prior, and all subsequent claims are derivatives. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but others have claimed since him, and that have increased attention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the moment we put in "others" it begs a source. To say Ghulam Ahmad no problem (I have just added Melton to lead - easily sourced) .. but does Melton say "and others"? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I like your edit, and have no problem with it. The body of the article can expand on his intellectual and religous "decendents" as appropriate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have obtained scanned images of the Arabic baook pages mentioning the words "YUZ ASAF" and "QASHMEER" . The English quote I last gave matched exactly the Arabic passage. If you wish I can e-mail the pages... 182.181.237.195 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but we now have a source (as above) in German confirming that the Arabic says YuDasaf, not YuZasaf and Ghulam Ahmad made a mistake. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

When I have the Original book in Arabic, repeatedly using clearly the words يوزاساف how any German translation can matter. Why not correct the German translation. Moreover, Ghulam Ahmad was NOT the only one or the first one to read the words as يوزاساف but many many writers before him (and not German but Arabic and Persian !) and I can quote many ! Dr Ali Drali1954 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Drali, but again Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH it is about WP:SOURCES. We have Robert Volk, the world's leading authority on the Yuz Asaf legend saying (2009) that the 1883 Teheran edition of Ibn Babuyah has Yudasaf not Yuzasaf, and also specifically saying that Ghulam Ahmad made "Manipulation" of the text. Yudasaf غعئشسشب ≠ غعيشسشب Yuzasaf. This is a WP:IRS, so it goes into the article.

Even if it was Yuzasaf in 1833 Teheran text, there are WP:IRS giving variants of Yudasaf spelled Yuzasaf in other sources, and dozens of other sources all saying that Yudasaf/Yuzasaf in islamic sources is Yudasaf/Yuzasaf not Isa. We must follow printed secondary and tertiary WP:PSTS sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In Ictu Oculi - I get your point now: (1) That YUZ ASAF is NOT Jesus. (2) That Hadhrat Ahmad (as) ‘manipulated’ the Buda Asaf – to - Yuz Asaf to make .... Buddha, appear ‘Jesus ‘.

1) No doubt it is an academic discussion whether “Yuz Asaf” is in reality “ Issa or Jesus” and it needs further corroborative evidences.

2). However, to accuse Hadhrat Ahmad that he “manipulated” the tern is totally unfounded and a lie. I wish such a grave accusation against a person, who is believed by millions today, to be a Prophet of God , is substantiated by genuine scholarship. I hope the accusation is not by someone who finds it hard to reconcile to the idea that how could “Lord Jesus” be buried in an unknown grave in India? Drali954 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dr Ali,

Please understand, these are not my points. I am not Dr. Robert Volk and I did not edit the Greek edition of Balawhir and Yuzasaf. Nevertheless Robert Volk is WP:RS and so Robert Volk (actually citing the Arabist Norbert Klatt) can go into the article.

I asked above if you had an Arabic/Urdu keyboard? Can you please type in the spelling of Yudasaf/Yuzasaf as it appears in the photocopy you have.

In reality the spelling does not matter enormously since Yuzasaf is Buddha in the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity (رسائل اخوان الصفاء) the change from Budasaf to Yudasaf to Yuzasaf is already documented in Arabic sources.

Even the tombofjesus.com website acknowledges that Yuzasaf is based on the The Story of the Prince Yuzasaph and the Philosopher Balauhar, and tombofjesus.com gives a second example where Yuzasaf who was originally Buddha, also became Joseph in Egypt "and the Pharoah of Egypt deputed Yuzu Asaph who was the progeny of Moses as his ambassador.". Yuzasaf is a compound of many legends built on the original Buddha story.

Anyway, we need to move on as we already have plentiful Arabic sources on Yuzasaf. There are couple of other questions you may be able to help with. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you in ictu oculi. I get your point. I shall try to be of any help in this worthy task. be well.Drali954 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)