Talk:Zafar Bangash
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the 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. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Bearian (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The quotes need to stay in. When it comes to controversial comments, quoting is better than trying to paraphrase them. All of these quotes have been properly sourced. If it is felt that these quotes are being taken out of context, then the proper context should be provided as opposed to simply deleting them. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
I've reversed the changes that 99.237.254.101, whoever this is. Bangash's views should not be whitewashed. If 99.237.254.101 wants to make changes, he should at least register with Wikipedia as opposed to hiding behind his/her IP address.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC))
Contents |
[edit] WP:SELFPUB
According to WP:SELFPUB, self-published material may be used as long as it is, amongst other things, "not contentious". Most of the material in this article, is contentious, thus self-published sources seem not be appropriate.Bless sins (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Toronto Sun is a legitimate source
The Toronto Sun is a legitimate source. It is read by millions of people everyday and is published by a reputable news corporation. If you can find evidence to the contrary please let me know. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
- The Toronto Sun is a tabloid. It isn't completely "off-limits" as a source, but it should be used with caution even at the best of times. CJCurrie (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with that one. If you are really looking for a good Canadian source, try the Toronto Star, Vancouver Sun, Globe and mail etc.Bless sins (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The Toronto Sun is not a "tabloid." It is a reputable newspaper, albeit not as reputable as the Globe and Mail or the National Post. And who is CJCurrie to decide what qualifies a newspaper to be a tabloid? Anyway, I am simply citing the fact that Bangash received an award from the Canadian Arab Federation. What's wrong with that? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
- (i) The Toronto Sun is most certainly is a tabloid, and is recognized as such by other news sources, (ii) the problem is that you're also editorializing. CJCurrie (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please cite what "other news sources" say the Toronto Sun is a tabloid?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
- The New York Times, for one:
-
- The big story in Canada over the last couple of weeks, involving the Maple Leafs rookie Jiri Tlusty, spilled beyond the sports pages to become a sort of national litmus test on social attitudes.
-
- It all began when cellphone photographs of Tlusty taken last season, when he was a junior player for Sault Ste. Marie in the Ontario Hockey League, appeared on a gossip Web site. One picture showed him nude; another showed him playfully touching tongues with a male friend. The Toronto Sun, the country's biggest tabloid, published the pictures on its front page Nov. 14. (New York Times, 25 November 2007, p. 11) CJCurrie (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Restoring Version that Reginald Perrin deleted
I am restoring the previous version. Aside from the fact that it is not redundant, this version is better organzied since it has section dividers. Reginal Perrin's version had no sections, just one long article. This version is better. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Reginald Perrin - stop removing my work
Stop removing the material I put in this article - Bangash's views on Israel and Israelis is notable and properly sources - don't delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperionsteel (talk • contribs) 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I won't change it for now - since this would violate the 3RR rule - but I plan to restore my version at a later date. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC))
I've added material from third party sources, including material critical of Bangash, paraphrased some of what he had said and removed quotes that belabor points already made in other quotes. Please see our policies against "coatracking", "quote mining" and building quote farms. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, please see WP:OWN, it is not "your" work. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- "I won't change it for now - since this would violate the 3RR rule - but I plan to restore my version at a later date." If you try to game the system of 3rr, admins can still block you.Bless sins (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New version seems to be okay
It seems I was too quick to judge Reginald Perrin. I based my above statment on what Perrin had put into the article at that time. However, he has since added additional content, including much of the content that was in my version.
As such, I will not undo his changes - although I may add more to this article in the future. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
[edit] No first party material
I've removed the first party material as it's a violation of our BLP policy regarding Original Research and Reliable Sources. It's not our job to do research and select juicy quotes from Bangash's writing. If a third party hasn't found the material notable we can't dig it up and use it. Please only use third party sources for controversial quotes. See WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:OR. Reggie Perrin (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you feel the quotes from Bangash were taken out of context, feel free to explain why? The quotes accurately represented Bangash's views - many of which, although extreme, are important to this article. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
- The problem is that by going through his self-published writing and picking and choosing sections you are engaging in original research. We're not supposed to use primary sources in articles and that's what I've removed. We should be relying on third party sources entirely. If a reputable third party such as the National Post or Toronto Star has published an article or column about something Bangash has said, we can use that. If such an article quotes him we can use that quote. But we can't just go through his writing and cherry-pick, particularly not if the quotations being pulled are contentious. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
