Talk:Habib R. Sulemani/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is the talk page for the Habib R Sulemani topic. Please conform to the standards and conventions of writing and layout, some of which are summarised below:

  • Sign your posts: To sign a post, type four tildes (~~~~), and they will be replaced with your username and time stamp, like this: Eloquence 03:44 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC). On wikipedia we recommend that you try to always Sign your posts on talk pages.
  • Use indenting to keep the conversation straight: The first contributor is all the way to the left, the next person starts with one colon (:), the next person starts with two colons. Then, when the first contributor responds, they start at the left margin again, and the second and third persons continue to mark themselves with one and two colons respectively. In that way, who is saying what is clear.
  • Separate discussion topics: Put each new topic under a different headline (== Subject ==). The "Post a comment" feature accomplishes this automatically when you enter a subject line. The edit summary is automatically the same as this header. Thus every thread is a section. This allows section editing of the thread in question (see Wikipedia:Sections). You can also use horizontal lines (----), although some users strongly dislike them.
  • Proceed vertically: The further down the contribution to talk, the later it was made. Please add new topics/headings at the end.
  • Keep to the topic: This page is for discussing issues directly related to the Habib R Sulemani article.

Contents

Remarks from Talk:Pakistan

Habib R. Sulemani (self-?) promotion spree

Anonymous user(s) have been using Wikipedia to promote Habib R. Sulemani. Much of this was from 203.82.48.7; See [1] - possibly Mr. Sulemani himself or someone associated with him. Links to Mr. Sulemani's writings have been put into pages where they are nearly irrelevant. From W:WWIN, #18: Wikipedia is not a "vehicle for advertising and self-promotion." There is a Wikipedia article about Mr. Sulemani. If you read between the lines, his career seems to have been less than stellar, to put it charitably. This is just an observation. I don't have a recommendation yet, except to watch for insertions of irrelevant or misplaced material. Egalitus 00:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mr Sulemani is at it again, inserting links to his wikipedia page and his articles. It wouldn't be so bad if his material wasn't of such poor quality, full of mistakes of grammar and spelling. 68.20.28.120 15:16, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)[2]

This Habib R. Sulemani reeks of self-promotion... 08:32, 19 Nov 2004 Hulleye

I agree. I'm starting the Talk:Habib R. Sulemani page. Maybe we can persuade him to delete it or tone it down. 12:24, 22 Nov 2004 AmeriDesi
Don't be judgmental and biased. You guys seem judgmental and biased... The discussion about Habib R. Sulemani is useless here so please see the Talk:Habib R. Sulemani page. 14:05, 27 Nov 2004 FactFinder

Appropriateness

Should there be an entry for Habib R. Sulemani in Wikipedia? The article sounds like a promotion for Mr. Sulemani. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote somebody. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#What Wikipedia articles are not. Another problem with using Wikipedia for promotion is that articles may, in its own words, "be mercilessly edited." Also see Wikipedia:Auto-biography User:AmeriDesi

It is an appropriate article. Habib R. Sulemani is a famous young journalist, writer and poet of Gilgit-Baltistan, who is playing his part in the national main stream of Pakistan and has been quoted internationally. I have been creating articles about this remote and strategic area (Gilgit-Baltistan) and the country (Pakistan). Such articles are the real and exclusive assets of Wikipedia. Some such articles, I have been created over the past few months are given below:Lalak Jan, Nazir Sabir, Nasir al-Din Nasir Hunzai, Dr. Faquir Muhammad Hunzai, Mir Muhammad Jamal Khan, F M Khan, Abdul Hamid Khan, Mir of Hunza, Farman Ali, Khaled Ahmed, Salman Rashid, Kaleem Omar, Habib R. Sulemani, Mohammad Shehzad etc. 203.82.48.55

Questions

When was Mr. Sulemani born? Where was he educated? Was he paid for most of the works mentioned in this article? To user 203.82.48.55: are you Mr. Sulemani, or do you personally know him? How did you get his CV? User:AmeriDesi

Answers

  • The answers to the above questions have been given in the articles' new edition. Remember: journalists working with the leading and major newspapers in Pakistan, especially the English language, are always paid people. But working with the small and regional newspapers or magazines is mostly a labor of love. User:203.82.48.55
  • Yes I know most of the people I have written about, among them are Lalak Jan, Nazir Sabir, Nasir al-Din Nasir Hunzai, Dr. Faquir Muhammad Hunzai, Mir Muhammad Jamal Khan, F M Khan, Abdul Hamid Khan, Farman Ali, Khaled Ahmed, Salman Rashid, Kaleem Omar, Habib R Sulemani and Mohammad Shehzad.User:203.82.48.55
  • Basically I'm doing my academic research on Wikipedia and the people using it. And therefore, I'm not supposed to participate in the discussions here. But yet I'll contribute to it honestly and gracefully. I was compelled to make some points clear so I have done it. Anyhow, thanks for the positive and scholarly criticism (with grace) on my articles. Be blessed always. User:203.82.48.55

Recommendations and suggestions

Even if the existence of this page should prove appropriate, it needs editing to make it conform to various Wikipedia guidelines and/or formats: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:WikiProject BiographyUser:AmeriDesi

One can edit any and everything according to his or her wish and the editing policies of every publishing organization change according to the changing time. 203.82.48.55

Specific problems

Verifiability

Many statements here are hard to verify, such as:

  • Love, peace, humanity, interfaith harmony and Global prosperity are the main subjects of his literary and journalistic writings. How do we confirm this?
  • Lahore Bureau Chief of monthly Bloristan. Is there such a magazine? Does it have a Lahore Bureau? Was he its chief? User:AmeriDesi
Verified. Unfortunately the daily Dawn's Sunday Magazine, Books & Authors and The Review sections are weekly updated and the previous articles are removed, so they are not available on the web. Other newspapers had no web pages in that time but I can get these articles in Urdu and English from the library, but I fear it will increase the length of the original article on Habib R Sulemani. As some one has added his 'comments on democracy in the cyber age' in the main article. Moreover, if you read the links to the article, especially 'Prof Annemarie Schimmel,' [3], 'A tribute to Alys Faiz,' [4], 'Democracy in the cyber age,' [5], 'Roman Urdu,' [6], 'Pakistan on the cyber map,' [7], 'War Victim's cry for peace,' [8], you will find that 'love, peace, humanity, interfaith harmony and Global prosperity are the main subjects of Habib R. Sulemani's writings.' 203.82.48.55
The monthly 'Bloristan' was a regional magazine published for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan from Karachi and it remained intact from 1992-96. For this please also see Farman Ali. 203.82.48.55
Objection again. No, "verifiable" means that readers can go to some authoritative source (not the anonymous author of this article) to confirm the statements.
If these were the sum of his writings, and if the main subjects of these writings were love, peace, humanity, interfaith harmony and global prosperity, then you could say that it was verifiably true. But Mr. Sulemani has, by your own assertions, written much more than this.
Is there some reference work, such as an old telephone directory, or a authitative list of publications, where the existence of this magazine and its Lahore Bureau can be confirmed? One might ask for the same for some of the other publications cited. 68.20.88.38 05:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not writing my PhD thesis on Mr Sulemani. The answers of your objections are here in these pages and further information can be achieved. But, I'm not writing my PhD thesis on Habib R. Sulemani. As I have told here in these pages before that I'm doing my research on Wikipedia and the Wikipedians... But in my free time, I have created dozens of articles and Habib R. Sulemani was one of those normal length articles but I was compelled to achieve further information and thus this article became a lengthy one. I'm surprised this Talk:Habib R Sulemani is going more lengthy. Thanks for an interest in the article.

User talk page for the person posting this

I have created User talk:203.82.48.55 and requested the user to get an account, so these matters can be discussed in a more organized fashion. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC).

Thanks iFaqeer

Thank you very much Faqeer for your efforts. We the netizens are one family and there should be communication among us to spread knowledge and wisdom. 203.82.48.55

Can you really do justice to editing?

We know that it is really very hard to create an article. It needs a vast knowledge, which comes through methodical study, keen observation, deep thinking and rethinking--- a painful labor of long lonely hours (rather years). Writers are generally those people who are educated in any discipline of social sciences or humanities. Therefore, whoever wants to edit an article here in the world of Wikipedia, he/she must keep this general points in mind:

  • Touch an article for editing only when you are sure that you will do justice to it.

It is being observed here that many guys are not able or are not having the proper information on a subject and they just start editing an article for fun or out of a biased nature. For example, if a professional web-designer or computer-engineer starts editing an extensive scholarly written article on art and literature… what can we expect from him/her? Indeed a blunder… But he/she can prove a genius while writing in his/her own domain. FactFinder

Wikipedia relies on amateurs

I have no opinion of the underlying issue on this talk page, but I felt that this comment is far from the philosophy of Wikipedia. The idea of Wikipedia is that it isn't that hard to create an article. The amazing thing about it is that even though the barrier to entry is so low, that so many entries are as good as they are. I never would have believed it if I hadn't seen it for myself, but Wikipedia is as successful as it is because it relies on the efforts of talented amateurs, and not just professionals.

As an aside, you can assign your comments by including four tildes in a row. This automatically expands to your user name and the date. –

Walt Pohl 07:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amateurs should not be judgmental and biased. I had raised the question "Can you really do justice to editing?" here because of the critique and acts of vandalization of the entry on Habib R. Sulemani. I think it is nice for amateurs to try their creative talent here on the Wikipedia but if an article is well written honestly, the amateurs are not supposed to be judgmental about it or act biased. It is against the spirit of freedom of thought, speech and expression-- the Wikipedian ethos in the Global Village. We can discuss each and every thing here with tolerance and respect for each other in a civilized way. User:FactFinder

Suggestion for FactFinder

FactFinder, you can sign your comments by using four tilde(~) characters in a row. 68.20.88.38 05:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criticism is allowed

One of the great things about Wikipedia is the freedom of expression. If it is appropriate to have an article about Mr. Sulemani, it should not say only positive things about him. Any true or valid criticism of Mr. Sulemani, his writings, and his ideas, is entirely appropriate as well. 68.20.88.38 05:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

South Asians are uncivilized people?

Here I’m raising a new question; people from Pakistan and around the world can answer or give their comments.

  • The Pakistani people are taking keen interest in the Wiki-World and every day a lot more volunteers are joining the Wiki-team. Will it change the image of the country in the cyberspace, where the majority of people from Pakistan, India and other South Asian countries are considered as sex-addicts, intolerant tribal fundamentalists, and uncivilized lot?
  • It is a very difficult and controversial question to answer... User:202.91.96.62
Off-topic. This kind of comment is known as a troll, an inflammatory remark intended to disrupt a discussion or spark a flame war. I'm pleased to see that no one here took the bait. It should be deleted, I think. Streeterviller 13:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Pls don't deleteit This question is very importent for media analysts. Don't remove it.

Remarks by User 202.91.96.57

Every Net user is really happy after coming to know the job WIKIPEDIA is doing in the Global Village. Well done. We hope one day the majority of the 'Netizens' will bother nowhere else for the scattered information and knowledge on the web and will get everything under the umbrella of WIKIPEDIA.

After my arrival in the Wiki-World, I searched for Pakistan and relating articles. I was surprised to see this more material and a great number of Pakistani volunteers who are putting Pakistan on the Wiki-Map. It is really amazing. The persons who created this beautiful article on Habib R. Sulemani and many other intellectuals, writers, journalists and places etc of the country, are really doing a great job. Just look at the list of articles and read them how nicely they have collected the information. I think we should encourage such volunteers to make a Universal Data Base in the form of Wikipedia.

I think Habib R. Sulemani is not a Sacred Cow but positive criticism is a healthy ritual. Thanks to the person who has started this Talk: Habib R. Sulemani page. We all are also appreciable who are investing their time here and discussing things nicely in a democratic way.

Here in this page any body can ask any question or answer any question. Moreover, any body can give comments or counter comments. I have designed this page in an organized way, you can improve it further. --

Vandalization and freedom of speech

I have studied throughly the articles here. Some one has gathered the negative remarks about Habib R. Sulemani here. I found one and want to add it here as well. I’m not baised but it all makes an interesting reading.

On October 29, 2004 annomous user 68.20.28.120 added the bracketed {} stuff in the main article:

  • Habib R. Sulemani {is a self-acclaimed} poet, writer and journalist, {who is being promoted through articles on wikipedia}…. He has witten in leading English and Urdu newspapers of Pakistan, including the daily Dawn {(letters to the editor only, apparently)} , the daily Jang and {(its subsidiary)} The News International. It is claimed that he has been quoted in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights' 59th session held in Geneva, {although, without references, the nature and veracity of this is uncertain. It is claimed that} his writings have been translated {(by himself?)} to many languages and published in newspapers in various countries… {The names of these books are apparently unknown to the general public, and it is unclear if they were ever published.} He has been writing in three languages and anthologies of his English, Urdu and Wakhi poetry, fiction, essays and research works are being compiled {(by himself?)}.

At the end user 68.20.28.120 gives his comments in two parts:

  • According to a tagline at the end of a recent articl[9], Mr. Sulemani is a "freelance columnist" which is most likely a euphemism for "unemployed."
  • The changing Northern Areas[10] This is an article that illustrates Mr. Sulemani's writing style: it is full of errors of grammar and spelling, with long, rambling paragraphs. Even worse, the article suffers from bad editing: the last seven paragraphs are verbatim repetitions of earlier sentences.[11]

User:FactFinder

Summary: issues that need to be resolved

List of Issues

I'd like to list here those issues regarding the Habib R. Sulemani article that need to be resolved. Just a list, and just about the main article itself, not the discussion about it. Each item here is then discussed in a subsection below. Please feel to add to the list. Streeterviller 15:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Does the article meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia?
  • What points can be authoritatively verified?
  • What points have not been authoritatively verified?
  • Should the article include criticism of Mr. Sulemani's writing & ideas, etc.?Streeterviller 15:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does the article meet the inclusion critera?

See: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. If it doesn't meet the criteria, then it might be submitted to a vote for deletion sooner or later, and get deleted. Next month, I'm going to be meeting with people who are active in Pakistan's literary scene. I'll find out if Mr. Sulemani is well-known or not.Streeterviller 15:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we need a reality check, Hulleye is an editor at Herald. Maybe he has heard of Mr. Sulemani. I'll put a question on his talk page. Egalitus 19:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
From User talk:Hulleye --
On the [Talk:Habib R. Sulemani] page, there is a question as to whether Mr. Sulemani's biography meets the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies.
We also need a reality check about Mr. Sulemani. I expressed the opinion that, because of your position at Herald, you might possibly know something about him. Do you have any information about Mr. Sulemani, or is he - as I think - nearly unknown? Egalitus 23:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've asked some senior reporters in Dawn and nobody has heard of this guy. [Hulleye 09:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)]

Dubious User:Egalitus with vengeance: This user User:Egalitus is a dubious person and seems out of vengeance here … He/she is involved in acts of vandalization and seems a ‘negativist.’ Either he/she is User:Hulleye or some one relating to him/her. Thus there can be some professional rivalery with the title of the article. User:Egalitus has chosen User:Hulleye the sole authority for an ‘oral verification’ leaving the written articles aside. Moreover, in the main article Habib R. Sulemani, it is no mentioned that he was an employe of Dawn. Also see Wikipedia:Verifiability 20:44, 15 Dec 2004 202.176.255.170

Simply for the sake of clarification, Egalitus asked me if i'd heard of Habib R. Sulemani. I informed him I hadn't. However, I have been part of journalist circles for just under three years here in Pakistan and still consider myself a newbie, so I asked people who've been in the business for close to fifty years... and not one had heard of him. The Habib R. Sulemani business had piqued my interest simply because he was being portrayed as a well-known personality in journalism. And while he may certainly be an up and coming young writer as the article describes him to be, this does not merit a feature-length article on Wikipedia.
Two of the people User:203.82.48.55 mentioned he had created pages for along with Habib R. Sulemani include Khaled Ahmed and Kaleem Omar who are profoundly more popularly known in journalist circles, as well as being public entities in their own right. Two others, Farman Ali and Salman Rashid, may not be in the same league as public figures but I have dealt with them on a professional basis and have a sense of the solid reputation they hold in Pakistani journalism. Others that this user has portrayed as well-known journalists (F M Khan and Mohammad Shehzad), are also unknown to me.
With Nazir Sabir, Nasir_al-Din_Nasir_Hunzai and Faquir Muhammad Hunzai it appears User:203.82.48.55 is attempting to promote some personalities that have achieved fame or popularity within the Northern Areas of Pakistan but IMHO such region-specific popularity really should not be worthy of an entire article on Wikipedia. Hulleye 07:08, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

What points can be authoritatively verified?

See: Wikipedia:Verifiability At least some things about Mr. Sulemani are verifiable and true beyond any reasonable doubt:

  • Mr. Sulemani is a real person, verifiably and beyond any reasonable doubt.
  • He has written some articles that were published in English-language papers of Pakistan, and are available online. He has also written letters to the editor. Some of these articles and letters contain information about himself.
  • The News, which is a reputable paper, called him a "freelance columnist" so perhaps he may perhaps be verifiably described as such. Streeterviller 15:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What points have not been authoritatively verified?

Many of the sentences in the article, I think, are of this kind. A skeptic might say that we cannot be sure if the details of Mr. Sulemani's life haven't been made up by a prankster, or a researcher trying to find out how many fictitious details he can add before someone catches on. I don't think that is happening here, just playing devil's advocate. Streeterviller 15:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should the article include criticism of Mr. Sulemani's writing & ideas, etc.?

In my opinion, criticism should be included only if 1) either it is verifiably factual, or 2) comes from an authoritative or famous source. Streeterviller 15:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me try a different tack.

Habib Sulemani, FactFinder and others that speak for him, I guess the community at Wikipedia might not have explained properly what we are saying. FactFinder expressed the opinion that contributors that were commenting on the article on Mr. Sulemani and articles that mentioned him were being "judgmental and biased", for example. Here are a few points to ponder:

  • The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a wiki. So the very spirit is that everyone can and should edit articles when they see thing that they think can be improved. The integrity of the database is maintained by unrelenting re-editing and reverting that the community can and does engage in. FactFinder said above:
We know that it is really very hard to create an article. It needs a vast knowledge, which comes through methodical study, keen observation, deep thinking and rethinking--- a painful labor of long lonely hours (rather years). Writers are generally those people who are educated in any discipline of social sciences or humanities. Therefore, whoever wants to edit an article here in the world of Wikipedia, he/she must keep this general points in mind:
* Touch an article for editing only when you are sure that you will do justice to it.
It is being observed here that many guys are not able or are not having the proper information on a subject and they just start editing an article for fun or out of a biased nature. For example, if a professional web-designer or computer-engineer starts editing an extensive scholarly written article on art and literature… what can we expect from him/her? Indeed a blunder… But he/she can prove a genius while writing in his/her own domain. FactFinder

and

I think it is nice for amateurs to try their creative talent here on the Wikipedia but if an article is well written honestly, the amateurs are not supposed to be judgmental about it or act biased. It is against the spirit of freedom of thought, speech and expression-- the Wikipedian ethos in the Global Village. We can discuss each and every thing here with tolerance and respect for each other in a civilized way.
The statements about articles being fixed in content once they are well-written from the writer's point of view are true for writing one does in the press, but not at the Wikipedia. In an encyclopedia, one writer does not own the article. [That is often only true in magazine journalism; even news reporting doesn't have that.] The final article is often the work of more than one writer and a series of editors. And, in my umble opinion, at least, it is physically and practically impossible for an article written by one person not provide an encyclopedic view of any topic. We are all humans and can only relate what our very limited human experience has shown us.
Writers/editors/contributors in the Wikipedia, more often than not, are NOT people that are educated in the field they are helping with but, more likely, hobbyists. Though what you say above is not true of journalists either. By definition, journalists are not scientists or philosophers or economists; they are professional writers helping the general public understand those topics. But I digress.
  • The content of various text quoted from Mr Sulemani's work and in the article on him is often very heavy on content that is not objective. Or is often written in a way that doesn't sound that way. You might not agree with that. But that's your point of view.
  • The amount and content of the information on Mr Sulemani. Compare the article on Mr Sulemani with, say the article on Kaleem Omar. Are you telling me that Mr Sulemani is a more significant journalist than Mr Omar? Do we need to list every little journal Mr Omar has written for in his life? I think even that Omar article should not be about what he believes but what he writes, what topics and any newsworthy things he has done.
  • Naming sources: Encyclopedia entries--either here or in others--do not usually say things like "Seymour Hersch has written the following on this topic:..." That might be appropriate in a magazine and even in the press, but not in an encyclopedia. That's why some one tried to remove his name from Pakistan#The impact of the Internet. What is quoted there is an opinion--and one I disagree with completely--not information that should be in an encyclopedia.

PS When I get a chance, I am going to edit Pakistan#The impact of the Internet. Please do not take it personally.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:31, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)