Talk:Habib R. Sulemani/Archive 2

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.

Contents

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)]
I've posted your reply to the talk page. Thanks. Egalitus 17:57, 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)
To User 202.176.255.170: I am a little saddened by your reaction. I realize it must be hard to maintain perspective in the face of criticism of Mr. Sulemani, if you are him, or are close to him. This is one of the reasons it is not a good idea to write Wikipedia articles about yourself or people that you intimately know (To quote Wikipedia:Auto-biography, ".. articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in at least three instances have been listed for deletion by their original authors." Also see the criterion from Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, "has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?".)
I have contributed over 250 edits to Wikipedia since March 24, 2004. I have never before been accused of vandalism. That charge is unmerited.
For the record, I'd like to say the following:
  • I am not Hulleye or a relative of his, and do not know him personally. I believe he lives in Pakistan. I have lived in the USA for a very long time. That is why I needed a "reality check" from a journalist in Pakistan - not as an employment reference, but to ask if Mr. Sulemani was well-known in the profession. The article does not use Hulleye as an authority for any assertion, let alone the "sole authority."
  • I have no professional rivalry or personal enmity towards Mr. Sulemani. I never knew of him before I saw his name here on Wikipedia. I am not and have never been a journalist or poet, or a professional editor or writer. Other than an article I co-authored long ago in the American Journal of Hematology, I have never had an article published in a subscription-based periodical.
Finally, if I have hurt your feelings, I am regretful. Egalitus 22:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well said, Egalitus. Are you going to/shouldn't you copy this to the Talk page on Sulemani?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:09, 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)

Remarks by User:203.82.48.55

You guys are really doing a very good job for the policy makers at the Wiki Think Tank. May God bless you all and the Wikipedia. Thanks for taking interest in my articles.

Wikipedia’s evolutionary stage: A long way to go ahead

This article Habib R. Sulemani has provoked many people in the Wikicommunity and a rare and fruitful discussion is going on here. It is a healthy sign and a humble donation form our part for Wikipedia in its evolutionary and long journey to go ahead. Please never take anything personal here with my assumptions, comments and questions, which I’m going to express bellow. I don’t want an insult to any body but a healthy criticism is a democratic way and I strongly believe in freedom of thought, expression and speech. User:203.82.48.55 21:16, 16 Dec 2004

I went through the main article Habib R. Sulemani; read the external links and the objections and comments here in these ‘Talk:Habib R. Sulemani’ pages. I also critically studied those dozens of articles this anonymous creator 203.82.48.55 is amazingly contributing to the Wikipedia. I also went through the user pages of the commentators and searched their history. It was really a time consuming and rewardless job but I could not stop myself from doing so and thus made this report given bellow. It is my humble share to the Wikicommunity. Whatever I found, here I’m going to express that freely and honestly. You can point out or give your comments but please never take anything personal. It is just a mental and intellectual exercise not aimed to insult any body. Nothing offensive. User:203.82.48.55 21:16, 16 Dec 2004

Why I appropriate the article on Mr Sulemani

This article Habib R. Sulemani and hundreds of other such articles are suitable for inclusion of biographies. Because, Wikipedia is crossing through an evolutionary stage, and is going to be much more than a traditional encyclopedia. In the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion of biographies, it is clearly mentioned, “This proposed policy is considered by some to have the status of semi-policy. It has not yet reached consensus support.”

So the Wikipedia rules on biographical entries are loosely structured. Thus here is a vast scope of biographical entries of those people who are not very famous, their fame is limited to certain areas and communities or they are above the average in their respective fields. To deviate from the traditional ways is not important for Wikipedia only but is also a milestone in the history of encyclopedias as well. Wikipedia is indeed going to be a “Universal Database” or UD for the coming generations. Wikipedia can’t afford to delete hundreds of thousand such articles volunteers are contributing here. A deletion of proper articles could be an intellectual loss for Wikipedia. User:203.82.48.55 21:16, 16 Dec 2004

The discussion here in the Habib R. Sulemani page are leading towards policy matters and I personally think that the discussion here will help greatly the Wikipedia Thinktank. Moreover you can propose a policy, please read the Wikipedia:How to create policy page. User:203.82.48.55 21:16, 16 Dec 2004

Suggestions for the Wiki Think Tank

I have the following humble suggestions for Wikipedia and the Wiki Think Tank.

  • Allow the Wikipedians to make entries about anything and everything as their firsthand knowledge or field of speciality. This will collect a great wealth of data at first and the evolutionary process (addition and editing) will make a crude material worth a reference.
  • The continuously editing and changing status of articles has both its pros and cons. There should be certain point that only necessary editing must be allowed and that should be only for those who are licensed (from the Wikipedia) and well reputed editors. The talk pages should be open for suggestions.
  • Some people (with an Wiki ID or anonymously or with changing IDs) have taken control of certain articles/topics and they are acting as Wiki Lords. They are editing articles to project their own points of view in a clandestine way and only professional people can detect such a behavior. Due to this behavior a large number of scholars, intellectuals and researchers are yet not taking Wikipedia seriously. This is against the evolutionary philosphy of Wikipedia. To nip this undemocratic behavior from the bud some thing must be done properly. User:203.82.48.55 21:16, 16 Dec 2004

Talk Sulemani page & some questions

Those guys who seem against the article Habib R. Sulemani and they are determined to delete it from here, their questions, answers and demands make a very interesting reading here. Without any comment I’m giving some example bellow:

  • 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 authoritative list of publications, where the existence of this magazine and its Lahore Bureau can beconfirmed? One might ask for the same for some of the other publications cited.68.20.88.38 05:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 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. May be we can persuade him to delete it or tone it down. 12:24, 22 Nov 2004 [AmeriDesi]
  • 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)
  • 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)

After such these reactions I was expecting if they will ask me to provide them the books Mr. Sulemani has edited/compiled or the manuscripts of his poetry and fiction etc…But so far they have not done that! Anyhow, reading the above posts and observing their behavior and movements the following points come to my mind:

  • After the provocative comments of user [202.176.255.170] (about the user Egalitus and Hulleye) another user [iFaqeer’s] suddenly appearance from the Wikivacation (which he had announced on the [Talk:iFaqeer] page. Hulleye’s clearification came later but the question comes to mind is: Was it a rescue operation or something else?
  • Why the critics didn’t start talk pages on other enteries for exemple as one critic said: 1) famous people like Kaleem Omar, and Khaled Ahmed; 2) less known as Farman Ali and Salman Rashid and 3) unknown as F. M. Khan and Mohammad Shehzad. User:203.82.48.55 21:16, 16 Dec 2004

User iFaqeer’s different tack

After user iFaqeer’s suddenly appearence from hybernation and he/she addressed me and the title of the article dirctly with some points with a the title, ‘Let me try a different tack.’ My reactions to Faqeer’s points are here below:

  • After observing the events of ‘vandalization’ and some illogical remarks (see the ArchiveOne), I had remarked, "Don’t be Judgmental and biased" but I had not addressed you directly, why did you take it personal?
  • I know well what is Wikipedia, encyclopedia and wiki. I never ment to stop people from editing. That is against the evolutionary philosphy of Wikipedia. Actually I wanted to say that we should edit an article neutrally and in a positive way not with a preplanned mission. As you called it ‘hobbyists’ should not destroy well written articles for fun or any other reason. Wikipedia is not something funny. It is rapidly going to be the strongest source of references for not only layusers but also for intellectuals, people from the judiciary and in the government corridors. So please make a difference between a chat room and Wikipedia.
  • I admire your knowledge about journalism, especially magazine-journalism. You have observed, “By definition, journalists are not scientists or philosophers or economists; they are professional writers helping the general public understand those topics.” True, but what about Karal Marx, who is source of inspiration for sociologists, political scientists, philosphy, economics and many other disipilines. He was basically a journalist. Mr. Vajpayee, former prime minister of India; AlGore, former voice president of the US; Faiz Ahmed Faiz, the famous Urdu poet; Altaf Hussain (not the MQM leader the former Pakistani minister and and editor of Dawn); Shery Rehman, a member of the Pakistani parliement (2004) and former editor of the Hearld; Kaleem Omar, a journalist, poet (English) and an authority on economic affairs, and many others who were/are journalists but also made a name for themselves in politics, literature and other fields. Actually they were/are above the average and their actions proved that.
  • I agree with you that the article Habib R. Sulemani is long. Actually it was a normal length article, some one added a piece of Mr Sulemanis article to it and others compelled the creator to do farther research and thus the length got an enormous increase.
  • I didn’t mean that Mr Sulemani is a more significant journalist than Mr Kaleem Omar, but reading his avalable articles here and knowing about his published and up coming books from the article I can say he is above the average journalists in the Pakistani society and he deserves to be included in the Wikipedia.
  • Quating some ones articles is a debatable topic. I’m no authority to stop you from editing and no one will take your actions personally. Please feel free but with a responsiblity.
I wasn't taking anything personally. And I know you weren't talking about me—in fact, that's why I spoke; wanted to give a non-personal comment. What I was saying was that calling comments "judgemental and biased" was not going to help the discussion. One basic principle of the WikiPedia community is to assume good faith unless otherwise state.
I think the real problem with the article on Mr Sulemani is that it reads like a BioData/CV/Resume. The Kaleem Omar article, for example, does not. That's why people have a problem with one but not the other. Though I think the Kaleem Omar article is not properly written either.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:40, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
You have done a smart job.203.82.48.55


What is this? User 203.82.48.55 apparently praises himself

From an earlier edit by 203.82.48.55 --

I also critically studied those dozens of articles this 
anonymous creator 203.82.48.55 is amazingly contributing
to the Wikipedia.

Streeterviller 08:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Praise for the creator

  • I came here as an academic researcher and Wikipedia divided me into two parts: (1)- the creator (I don’t call this part a writer or author); (2)- the critic/researcher (the actual part). Therefore, the critic is praising the the creator because both of them live in the same world (body) as you guys do share a world of your own. But please never doubt Mr Sulemani’s integrity, I don’t know what will be his reaction when he comes on these pages? Perhaps his blood pressure will be high! Unlike many other people (whom I personally know and have created articles about them), he is a shy guy who never goes to social gatherings and is confined to his books. His is most likely Mr. Khaled Ahmed, who dressed in a track suit with a bag full of books on his shoulder always searchs for ‘words and their meanings’ alone at home, office or outside... He is not a 'Dabag Insan' like Mr Kaleem Omar...
  • A researcher never reveals his/her findings untill it is done and after going through the academic process finally gets published for the public. I’m stopping here so that I can concentrate on my assigned job. But whenever I get a chance I’ll contribute to the Universal Database (UD). Please take nothing offensive, if some of you guys are hurt, especially the respected journalist User:Hulley, User:iFaqeer, User:Egalitus, User:Streeterviller, User:Walt Pohl, User:AmeriDesi and many others. Sorry!
  • Whatever you want to do with this article Habib R. Sulemani or dozens of other articles this anonymous creator has created here, please feel free. They are asset of Wikipedia. The creator is not claiming to be the author/writer. S/he has just initiated in some way and the evolutionary process will make the armature a mature article. The humble suggestion for the Wikicommunity is that, please keep the evolutionary spirit of wikipedia up. Act neutrally always and feel free with a sense of responsibility to edit articles. Be blessed always. Bye.

203.82.48.55