Talk:Muhammad Mahmood Alam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	Bangladesh Portal Muhammad Mahmood Alam is part of WikiProject Bangladesh, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bangladesh and Bangladesh-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not subsitute this template. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Bangladesh Notice board - Discussion board
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

MM Alam's sources are a bit of a tightrope laced with original research and official citations and a collaboration of the two by some reports. But it is true that he is considered atleast in PAF as a air ace, though it is disputed in India. That has to be mentioned cuz without that context, it would appear that a certain Sitara-e-Jurat has an article without mentioning why he needs one in Wikipedia. Because he is claimed as an air ace, the article needs to state with sources thus.

The source from BR (though not the best) does point that it uses Official Indian history on the war as its source. Please read carefully. This isn't original research, though it appears it is a borderline case.

P.S. It appears the previous talk section has gone because of an improper move. There were some information regarding the controversial kills in that talk. Idleguy 06:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Skies' POV

Freedom Skies the article states claims and counter claims of both sides regarding to M.M. Alam. Your problem seems to stem from the fact that you only want to refer to one side's sources when tackling this topic. If you have some better and possibly neutral sources then we will welcome them. Otherwise this borderline vandalistic behaviour isn't going to cut it. Red aRRow 11:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue with some sources is that they do not qualify as reliable. The case here is that we do not have an official PAF source stating the claims. What we have are secondary sources stating what PAF claims, which are not themselves reliable, and which do not cite their own sources. -- int19h 13:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think when it comes to Pakistani military, PakDef and Defencejournal are taken to be the most credible and closest to the official Pakistani POV, if not the official POV. Similarly from the Indian perspective Bharat-Rakshak is the one which is usually relied upon. Here both PakDef and DefenceJournal carry articles written by retired PAF officers. The article by DefenceJournal has a complete list of references at the bottom of the page. As is the case with most India-Pakistan military articles on wikipedia...I think it is best to state both sides of the story and let the reader to judge/further investigate on their own. I am sure Idleguy agrees with me on this. The one by PakDef is written by an F-104 Starfighter pilot who claims to be an eye witness. Thus the amount of claimed kills from Pakistani POV cannot be deleted from the articles on the ground of unverifiable sources. The other 3 articles do seem to be kind of un-official accounts of his private life. However these can be cross checked by a simple google search e.g. M.M. Alam Road in Lahore is mentioned in the wikipedia article on Lahore.

As for him being a bachelor and enjoying reading books...I don't know how those things can be referenced other than from online sources ?? (maybe some book)? Red aRRow 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting removing the info on kills and the ace status, merely rephrasing it so that it is not claimed to be the official PAF position (or finding reliable sources explicitly stating that it is). -- int19h 07:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think when it comes to Pakistani military, PakDef and Defencejournal are taken to be the most credible and closest to the official Pakistani POV

They're just private individuals who wanted to say something and found a website to say it on. Their credibility has yet to be endorsed by any media organisation at all.

I think it is best to state both sides of the story and let the reader to judge/further investigate on their own.

It would be nice. Both sides mean India and Pakistan, right??

The thing is "Pakistan" does'nt claim that he is an ace, the private Pakistani websites do.

I am sure Idleguy agrees with me on this.

I think he prefers the compromise version.

The one by PakDef is written by an F-104 Starfighter pilot who claims to be an eye witness.

My sentiments exactly. A Pakistani national who convieniently claims to be an eyewitness. Of course, the private websites got hold of him before the government of Pakistan and the Inter Services Intelligence authorities and got the exclusive scoop where the entire state machinary failed.

I'm not willing to go into his books and the spartan lifestyle etcetera. This is wikipedia not Maxim Magazine.

Freedom skies 10:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be over eager to discount the accounts given on PakDef and DefenceJournal. When it comes to Pakistani and Indian military there are few or no official sources available online. As I have said before PakDef, DefenceJournal and Bharat-Rakshak are the ones which are closest to the official military of Pakistan and India given from the fact that a lot of officers of the armed forces of both the countries contribute to the articles in them. So as far as this article is concerned they are reliable and verifiable enough. Red aRRow 14:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to Pakistani and Indian military there are few or no official sources available online.

And I thought the government of Pakistan website actually existed. I also thought reputable institutions like CIA World Factbook 2006, Pakistan Military Guide from GlobalSecurity.org or BBC Pakistan Military Through the Ages actually had anything at all to do with the Pakistani military whatsoever. How very stupid of me.

Freedom skies 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before there are no or few official sources available, which means there are NO or FEW sources which belong to the Pakistani or Indian military/government and have the time to be actually engaging in useless debates over who has a bigger member. As I have said PakDef and DefenceJournal are credible and verifiable sources, just like Bharat-Rakshak where a bulk of contributions are from serving or retired military personnels. The claims of both sides are listed in the article and as such there is no room for blind jingoism. Red aRRow 18:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before there are no or few official sources available, which means there are NO or FEW sources which belong to the Pakistani or Indian military/government

Correction. Plenty of sources are available on Indian and Pakistani militaries. Institutes like Brookings, are specialists in this field.

NO official source claims him to be an ace, leave alone verify it. Where has the Indian government called him an ace ?? Where has the Pakistani government called him an ace ?? Where is the BBC's opinion on this ?? Are you trying to prove that only a bunch of private websites know about MM Alam and the Govt of India, the Govt of Pakistan and the BBC never heard of him being an ace?? ??

have the time to be actually engaging in useless debates over who has a bigger member

Find time then, unless you answer all the questions regarding your edits on Wikipedia you abuse your privilages as an editor. I'll do you a favour and see that it does not happen. Work hard and find citations. Wikipedia is not a place for original research and is not your personal soapbox. Claims have be met with reason and argued out with other editors.

As I have said PakDef and DefenceJournal are credible and verifiable sources

Unfortunately "As I have said" does'nt cut it.

Accepting your personal opinion would be original research.

The claims of both sides are listed in the article and as such there is no room for blind jingoism.

In case you don't accept the neutral version I have another version for you. It's sourced by the way.

Freedom skies 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Besides http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/alam.htm which was written using official sources, I would suggest the PAF Official histories like John Frickers Battle for Pakistan, and History of Pakistan Air Force 1947-87 to form enough basis for Alam's claims. jaiiaf 04:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

it's a private Pakistani website which has nothing to do with the government of Pakistan.

It uses profane language like "The Hunters seemed to fly across Alam’s gunsight like a gaggle of geese, and he obliged repeatedly, four times in all. "

It's a fraduelent underground source which will not be allowed in an enclyclopedic article.

Find official sources, BBC sources or sources from respectable media. The very reason your article is being reverted is because it's based on stream of underground Pakistani websites.

I am sorry but Puspindar Singh's Fiza Ya is an underground source? I can also cite the official "History of Pakistan Air Force" Saga of Courage and Honour" , their official history which mentions that. jaiiaf 14:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies 11:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Books are banned by "Freedom" since they don't cut it. An Official pakistani site, as he requested, also seem to fall mysteriously under original sources. To top it, he has the power to say "rejected" as if he has done a peer review of the sources provided. Yet he keeps a version of Vayuspace which in itself confirms the 4 kills of Alam as a counter to the 5 claim of PAF official history. Sadly, even official versions don't seem to convince the user who has neither gone through the books nor the official websites. Idleguy 14:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I might add that the book cited was written by the same guy who wrote the Vayu Magazine article. I agree with Idleguy, why are you revertig back to that version? Dont let nationalism blind your judgement. jaiiaf 14:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that's good citation. Kudos to the guy who put it there. Instead of the pulp fiction garbage that was pushed earlier, this definitely clinches it. Grammer cleanup might be needed though. Freedom skies 15:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to add one more thing to it :-

12:08, 28 October 2006 Idleguy (Talk | contribs) (rv. I think reverting to a nonsensical version, especially when an official pak resource has been provided flies in the face of Wikipedia policies and ur own set of rules in the talk pages)

I kinda missed it. Given the past, I thought it was another revert to the underground sites which claim to be privy to the official records. Sorry for the oversight.

From my POV the official citations were still missing and reverting back to a version based on underground websites is something I cannot allow.

Now that the official citations are provided, it's a whole different story. Freedom skies 15:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M. Shahid Alam

We certainly don't need sarcasm here. M. Shahid Alam is a notable scholar and his brother, and it will not hurt if his link is included in this article. Thanks --Falcon007 16:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be included, just because he is MM's brother. Idleguy 17:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See also section was not a big deal. I could have argued with you regarding this but see no reason to push this. I hardly come to "all rights reserved articles". But anyway enjoy. --Falcon007 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)