Talk:Noor Pur Baghan

Unfortunate

It's unfortunate that this article was given as an example of Wikipedia article creation and editing. Its content is mostly primary, unverifiable information directly from its creator, not verifiable secondary sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Tapered (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you are taking the information from New York Times out of context, no where article by Noam Cohen mentions that this article is an example of Wikipedia article creation and editing. Nobody is saying that it is a featured article and independent media organizations are not limited to using best of the best examples. You have to respect what is published and move on. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And you have to respect our policies. I am going to truncate this mess. Anyone without a conflict of interest, as you have, is free to reinstate material provided that it is sourced. We have enough poor articles about villages in Pakistan and India without adding more. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, don't take it personal, there is nothing to be upset or angry about, looks like you are on a rampage to edit this article. I really see a fit of jealousy here. There are numerous pages on Wikipedia which do not have any sources, if you start removing all that information, there will be less than 50% of Wikipedia left of what it is today.

I will like to stress this here that this is a small village which is never featured in news or books and only people belonging to that village can testify about authenticity of material provided in this article. This information trickles down from person to person, from father to son, there was a an ancestry tree document existing which was a proof that Jayapala was one of forefather of the village people and it also mentioned that he fought battles with Mehmood Ghaznavi and Sabuktigin. Unfortunately that document was lost. I was born in that village and i know for sure that every word mentioned in this document is true.

I also testify to the fact that there is not single enhancement done by me to the truth. It will be unfortunate if you continue to remove useful information from this article.

I will like to request here that information be kept there for people with whatever tags you want to put in the article for example refimprove, citation needed and original source.

Again, as i already mentioned that New York Times article does not talk about authenticity of the article, it only talks about Wikipedia editing trends so please do not take this in a wrong way. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, WP:NOR, which is what's being described here. JNW (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Per Sitush's observation above, WP:COI is a concern. JNW (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it comes under WP:COI, "Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen" is not written by me and the edit has no exaggeration in it. It's as it is mentioned in NYT article. P.S. Your congrat seemed more like a ridicule but believe me I had no role to play in this, I was contacted, I was asked questions and tried my best to answer them, it was editor's choice what he thought is best to put in his article.

• Moreover, I did not see any policy article which says that it cannot be in the article space.

• I am not sure why me and the article I started is being punished for that.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's no punishment, nor ridicule, but I think you're too close to this, feel some ownership, and are inclined to take this personally. This involves basic policies that have been noticed by several experienced editors. JNW (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I will take my name out of the quote if that is any satisfaction to WP:CIO but that info belongs to that article and needs to go in, on the top, on the bottom, in the middle somewhere. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources

It seems there is a contention over the notability of this place and it seems to primarily arise due to a lack of sources. It is understandable that this is a small village and therefore there would be limited coverage in sources. But even then, some starting references are important in order to at least establish the article at a stub level and to partly allay the notability concerns. I ran a brief (very brief) search and I found this, which could be used as a reference:

• Population Census of Pakistan, 1961
• A search for "Noor Pur Baghan, Jhelum, Punjab, Pakistan" on Google Maps also returns a positive result. So at the very least, the map could also be used as a reference.

Hope this helps, Mar4d (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Mar4dl, thanks for the sources. Notability hasn't been questioned; once a town's existence is established it's in. The concerns here have regarded original research, conflict of interest and ownership. JNW (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, i am not sure how to award barnstars but you deserve a barnstar for this, i will research it. :) Sajjad Altaf (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. A barnstar is not neccessary, I think I already have too many (pun intended) :p Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been told before - probably at WT:INB - that we cannot use Google Maps to verify more than that a place exists. Apparently, Google regularly host sessions where they invite locals etc to add landmarks within villages and as such the detail is user-generated. In any event, Sajjad needs to cease editing this article: there is an obvious conflict of interest and a clear inability to distinguish what is encyclopaedic from what is not. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sitush, i understand why you were prompted to come and destroy this article, this is called disruptive editing, i do not think Wikipedia should endorse the behavior of vengeance that you are carrying on against me. After i opposed deletion of Phaphra on mere intellectual grounds which you proposed to be deleted, you just right came to this article and started deleting the content. Do you think you are hurting me while doing that or you are hurting Wikipedia in doing that? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd already visited this article, as it happens. Check the history and my comments further up the talk page. The people who are "hurting Wikipedia" are the ones who cannot edit within its policies and guidelines. Such people do not manage to accumulate > 115,000 contributions without a block, as I have done. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I understand that you have edited this article before in the past but your today's actions were more based on vengeance than intention to improve Wikipedia as you started editing this article and reverting all my edits on this article, on Dulla Bhatti article and on Maula Jatt article right after i opposed your proposal to delete Phaphra, you might disagree with me on that but this is not the way to run things. We should not have vengeance when we are editing Wikipedia, we consider ourselves on the same team. I have opposed deletion of HYM, the person who proposed that deletion did not take out his vengeance on me the way you did. I am sure you can reach any number of edits including over 115,000 by taking vengeance on people this way. You can always find some thing which lacks one Wikipedia policy or the other. I can assure you if we start removing information from Wikipedia which does not fall inline of its policies, you would not have 50% of the content left of what is Wikipedia today. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• And 50 percent less content would be fine, especially if it meant removal of oceans of unsourced text. When an article and an editor receive attention in the press, it invites a little extra scrutiny from within and outside Wikipedia. In this case, it has been of little benefit to have such an article constructed on original research and unsourced content. It will help once these issues are acknowledged. JNW (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted you again, Sajjad. Please read WP:BRD and stop adding this unsourced, poorly sourced and non-neutral ("spread the light of Islam"?) material. Here's a Mapathon example - a competition run by Google that encourages people (anyone!) to fill in information on their mapping database etc. You can't really even trust them for the spelling of the placename, let alone what lies within its bounds. - Sitush (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Do we really need a section to cover one sentence from the New York Times: Mr. Altaf has written entire Wikipedia articles on his phone, including one about Noor Pur Baghan, his hometown in Pakistan, and disputes the idea that smartphones are passive devices.? Especially since it's Mr. Altaf who continues to add this to the article. WP:SUBJECT is helpful here; this was not significant publicity, and doesn't merit mention. The template at the top of this talk page is sufficient. JNW (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Guys, no where in that section, my name is mentioned, the section reads like this (Noor Pur Baghan was mentioned in The New York Times article "Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen"<--ref>"Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen". The New York Times. 9 February 2014. Retrieved 10 February 2014.</ref-->) and it mentions the article and not me so please allow that.

Now about COI, you cannot possibly ban all New York City residents (there are millions of them) editing from New York City article because they live there or they were born there, my relation to this place is only that, that i was born there, how is that different than anybody else out there who is born in a place and is editing the article for that place.

I will like to talk about Google Maps as a source as well. Google Maps is biggest maps database on Earth. Your GPS runs on that, your facebook locations run on that, your mobile phone locations run on that, even all third party map sources for example Yahoo use Google Maps as their source. We cannot just possibly deny such a useful resource from being used as a source. According to my knowledge, there is quite strict control on Google Maps same as here on Wikipedia, nothing goes in without being reviewed by a number of people, even if something goes in which is wrong, it is removed soon after same as Wikipedia. Now the landmarks, the pathways, the school, the water wells all are visible on Google Maps and i request you guys to consider that and allow it. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Here, as at your talk page and the threads I've filed at ANI and page protection noticeboards, I've strongly suggested you cede involvement in this article. The edits you're pushing for, and which have filled this talk page for an article about a small village, are not supported by reliable sources, or are tainted by conflict of interest. Of broader concern is whether this is characteristic of your editing elsewhere on WIkipedia; thus far I've really tried to avoid perusing your edit history. But I will say that your style in discussion doesn't bode well: you've attempted to attack Sitush's motives on multiple occasions, and raised unrelated points, as in the New York City analogy above. Of course most everyone who edits Wikipedia may have COI issues; it's only when they're blatant enough to impact the quality and tone of articles that there is concern. JNW (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Raising the analogy of New York City was only to convince you guys about reconsidering the COI issue, regarding Sitush, i would not like to comment further and drag this conversation even longer from what it has been so far. I had some concerns and i expressed them, i have nothing to add to it and have no intention to escalate it further. Peace & Thank you Sajjad Altaf (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

War dead

People die in warfare and in big wars they tend to come from a wide range of places. That someone came from a village and died in a war is not usually notable, unless the person was themselves notable. I doubt, for example, that there is a village in the UK that did not suffer a death from WWI or WW2 but you're not going to find the articles for those mentioning those people. It is simply not encyclopaedix.

Noor Pur Baghan is a tiny village and if Wikipedia's attitude to places of habitation were not so screwed-up then it would not merit an article at all. That it does manage to qualify is something that we have to live with but that doesn't mean we stack the article with completely trivial information. Encyclopaedias are not repositories for every little thing known about a subject. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

My greatest respect and admiration to all of you experienced editors and admins. I was presented with this article that it was in a need of improvement and i took the task upon myself and researched quite a bit spending a lot of time and found quite good sources about this village only those sources and information to be removed by Sitush, i have personally nothing against him and he mentioned his reasons in the summary lines about why this information and this source should not be in the article. I did not add all of the information back considering his point of view. I only added some piece of information back while addressing Sitush's concerns and i believe, i addressed his concerns pretty well in the summary lines of all those edits specifying as to why i am adding that information back again, now he removed all of the information added by me again.

I believe all the sources should be there which were added by me since they add to the credibility of the subject and in case some of them gets removed from the website then some of them would still be available. For example Government of Punjab references for schools do say in there that Noor Pur Baghan is a "Muza" (an Urdu word for village), if we leave those references there, it adds to the credibility that it is a village and it has those schools. Also those refs list the years schools were built.

References for War martyrs are only for references purposes and there is a quote that only show up in references, war martyrs are not mentioned in body of article anywhere, they only show up in the references and again for the same purpose of proving that the village existed during the era of WWII, those references should stay there. If mention of War martyrs is a concern then it's okay we can remove the quoted part but keep the source in there. Reference for 1961 census is a book and that is the only book available online which has Noor Pur Baghan listed in there and i think it should stay there as well and this reference is not there to prove the population of the village, only to prove the notability and existence of the village. All there references were unique to find and they should not be removed.

Regarding the trivial information about the road, i think it was good to have it there just to inform people that village is connected to major city but if that is too much of a concern then it surely can get removed. That is it for now, i will drop in another note if i have something else to say. I am not here to cause any trouble, i am only here to help. Bhatti Rajpoot (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm concerned about the relationship between Bhatti Rajpoot and Sajjad Altaf. There's great similarity here in terms of typography and style, and an unusually strong shared interest in content. And I don't find Bhatti's claim to being new on Wikipedia at all credible. JNW (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Let's add the most recent incarnation, DJ Baghi, to the list of related accounts. It also looks like there's a bit of WP:POINTY to the edit history. JNW (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Yep. I'm off to bed but this is pretty obvious: an article about a minuscule village that has been owned and now has two recent new and sympathetic contributors using mobiles? I'd say WP:DUCK but something needs to be filed at WP:SPI, if only to settle whether it is one person or a concert party. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Same for me, calling it a night, though the quacking is getting noisy. JNW (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • • Guys, would you care to explain, what this nonsense is going on, what this gang war is about and why are you teamed up against this article and why I am being mentioned in bad terms by JNW above and why my edits are being reverted? If you have some personal problems with someone, please keep them to him, why are you bringing them to me? Does Sitush owns this article that nobody else can contribute to this page? He needs to review Wikipedia: Ownership of articles.

Why don't you take out your differences in a boxing ring instead of Wikipedia, if you are so inclined to fight?

And for information to your small minds, I picked up the article link from a link in a newspaper article and decided to check out the contribs, did I break some kind of law doing that.

Here, if you have not seen that before, http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/technology/wikipedia-vs-the-small-screen.html?referrer— Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Baghi (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats for getting quotes in the NYT. That said, it's entirely inappropriate to saturate the ref section with a bunch of completely tangential articles. Thanks to Sitush and others for cleaning this miss up. I'm not sure of there is a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT issue going on here, but I think there's a pretty good chance it's one or both. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Article state

This version of the article is acceptable. I've looked at the others in the history, and I agree with Sitush and JNW that the information and references in previous versions was not encyclopedic and/or reliable. COI and SPI or not, that information should not be returned. (And many of the photos should go as well.) Drmies (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI result

Regarding the above discussion, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sajjad Altaf/Archive. JNW (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)