Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Pakistan Zindabad

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Referencing

Pakistan Zindabad

edit
(
)

Created/expanded by TopGun (talk), Smsarmad (talk). Nominated by TopGun (talk) at 09:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The source given for the first hook says something else. It clearly says that they were not Kashmiris, but Jamait-Tuleba, student wing of Jamait-Islami. The article also fails D6 of Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, since there is a RfC going on the talk page. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    Do you mean to say Jamait-Tuleba is ethincity? Being Kashmiri and being a member of a student organization are two different things. Besides the source no where says that they were not Kashmiris. And about D6, there is no edit warring at the article neither there is any tag there, unless someone put one after my comment. --SMS Talk 07:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • So you mean to say that Jamait-Tuleba are representatives of Kashmiris? Jamait-Tuleba is a extremist group, and you can't term a group as Kashmiri. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, thanks you get it now. Jamait-e-Tuleba are one of the representatives of Kashmiri students. If a group belongs to some ethnic group, we can call them being from that ethincity. --SMS Talk 16:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This hook is highly misleading. Jamait-e-Tuleba is an extremist anti-Indian group. Please correct this hook, and alo the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    I don't understand your exact point. We really should not care whether they are anti or pro to any country, the point here is they are a Kashmiri group. And the said incident is mentioned by a number of sources. See for yourself how Victoria Schofield described the incident. --SMS Talk 21:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your hook is very misleading. Th thing is, they were a group, not an ethnicity. Why are you increasing the scope too much? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yes exactly that was a group, a Kashmiri group. Besides I gave you a neutral source to check what it says about the incident and the group. --SMS Talk 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
But why are you just increasing the scope. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not increasing the scope, that is why I added a neutral source for you to look for yourself, covering the event. --SMS Talk 16:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The book is not available for review, quote the book if you have access. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Kashmir In Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War by Victoria Schofield, Page 132: "...In October 1983 much was made of a cricket match held in Srinagar between India and the West Indies. The Indian team was booed by the assembled crowd, and supporters of the Jamaat-e Islami waved their green party flags...". --SMS Talk 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have gone through some sources related to this cricket match, and from what I've read so far, there is nothing to indicate that only "Jamait-Tuleba" crowd was cheering Pakistan. Thus, calling the entire crowd as Jamait-Tuleba is probably WP:OR and improper synthesis. Mar4d (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This interesting event is also covered in a piece in OPEN (Indian magazine). According to the narrator, there were "deafening cries of Pakistan zindabad" and that the West Indies team couldn't figure out "why they had so much support on Indian soil." An Indian cricketer, Kirti Azad, remarked that "It was like playing in Pakistan against Pakistan." (That day in 1986) Mar4d (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • After reading through, the article appears to be of good length and has good sourcing too. The first hook on a cricket match in Kashmir is interesting and appropriate for DYK, and seems relevant to the context. From what I see, looks good to go. Mar4d (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Please provide sources then. Its clear that supporters of an extremist group can be referred as "Kashmiris". I am still on the position that this hook is misleading. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    I respect your determination but I think its time to drop it. Its nothing more what I can do, the sources you are asking for are already provided. --SMS Talk 16:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The DYK is clearly misleading and unsupported by the source, Even the source by SMSarmad above clearly say they are a group of separatists from Jamaat-e-Islami ( a pro pakistani party) and their political views on a sports ground do not represent the whole Kashmiri community.--DBigXray 17:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    Please don't falsify the facts, the above source does not say so, read it again. --SMS Talk 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
1) Do not falsify facts, 2) there are two hooks there, you've opposed it without addressing the second. 3) You edits on my DYK submissions are clear cut hounding. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
More baseless accusations. Is everything is this world hounding? Also the hook itself is falsifying the fact. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
@TopGun Read WP:HOUNDING again before you make such serious accusations and admin shopping. this and a related article is already being discussed centrally at AfD. --DBigXray 14:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Not done This hook fails criteria 1 as nor it has been newly created nor has been expanded in 5 days but it has taken 1 month to come up here. Correct me if I m wrong. →TSU tp* 15:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) PS: Before anyone accuses me of hounding, I would like to clarify that I stalk Dave's talk page. Cheers! →TSU tp* 15:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    Kindly consider reviewing it again against Criteria 1. --SMS Talk 15:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I did, and still it is failing. The content has to be expanded to 5 folds so addition of refs or cats don't count. It is not summing up to 5 fold. It is close to 2.5 or 3 but not 5. Sorry. →TSU tp* 16:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the before expansion version (as on 21st June 2012) that had 864 characters (prose only) and this is after expansion (on 26 June 2012) and has about 4750 characters (again prose only). So you are right it is not five times expanded but more than five. --SMS Talk 16:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
According to DYKcheck, the article has met the 5x expansion requirement: the expansion began on June 22 and the article was nominated on June 26, well within the time required. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess this is good to go then? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The article's still a stub, which prevents final approval. Also, as there was controversy about the cricket match, adding the two sources mentioned above would be a good idea as corroboration. As noted below, I was thinking a new, independent reviewer could take a fresh look: one who hasn't participated in editing the article or its talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, luckily we have two hooks here.. both seem good to me and references have been discussed to. I guess it would be better that an independent reviewer checks it. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the previous error. I was calculating with a different method and missed few edits. This looks good for DYK. Also the hook is pretty attractive :) →TSU tp* 14:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Would like a new reviewer—also new to this discussion—to do a fresh review of the nomination and the proposed hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Please let an independent/uninvolved reviewer comment as requested because the first hook is the actual nomination, and the other one as an alternative. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who has not substantially contributed or has created the article, and has not nominated for DYK, is an independent editor. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Er, no.. you're disputing content there since long. Let's wait for another reviewer. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to agree that the wording of the original hook implying Kashmiris only were cheering could be misleading and seems to be inflammatory to some reviewers. The issue can be avoided entirely by saying (I linked ODI for the non cricket crowd and did a ce on ALT1 as well):

ALT2: ... that in a 1983 West Indies vs India ODI cricket match at Srinagar in Kashmir, many spectators cheered Indian defeat with Pakistan Zindabad cries?

Since the match was in Srinagar, the hook already implies that many of the spectators were Kashmiris without implying that only Kashmiris were cheering (I'm sure there were other ethnic groups as well). Froggerlaura ribbit 06:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Well then this should be closed with which ever hook that is appropriate, I'm fine by all alternatives above... --lTopGunl (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with the alternative hook too as suggested by Froggerlaura. Looks good to go. Mar4d (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I've made arrangements for an independent reviewer to look this over in the next day or so. For Froggerlaura's ALT2 hook, I'd like to suggest adding "in Kashmir" after "Srinigar" for clarity; far more people will have heard of Kashmir than Srinigar. (It gives the location, but says nothing about who was doing the cheering and who wasn't.) Another thought: based on the quoted information here and in the article's cited source, "some" should probably be "many". It seems clear that there were a significant number of people—"deafening cries", for example. "Some" can be read as a fairly small number of people, which wouldn't have been deafening, but the sources don't make the case for "most", which would require a majority. This leaves "many" as a better summation, given what the sources say. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I've adjusted ALT2 to reflect BlueMoonset's suggestions. Froggerlaura ribbit 13:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
How about also mentioning the year (1983) in which the match took place? Something along the lines of: "... that in a West Indies vs India ODI cricket match at Srinagar in Kashmir in 1983, many spectators cheered Indian defeat with Pakistan Zindabad cries?" Also, "Kashmir" should be wikilinked (using a pipe) to Jammu and Kashmir since the match took place in Indian-administered Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Made suggested changes. Froggerlaura ribbit 22:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hook: I must say I prefer ALT1. It should be rephrased, however, like "... that during the First Kashmir War the Indian Army isolated their own men by blowing up a bridge and retreating in false alarm after cries of "Pakistan Zindabad"? or something. Checking ALT1: Short enough, cited, interesting
Article: New enough at the time of nomination. Referencing is thorough, but I'm worried about some of the sources. This looks like a memoir; do we have third-party confirmation of the events? Several of these are poorly formatted. "A history of Radio Pakistan", for example, is not published by Google Books. No close paraphrasing against the Sen reference or this
Some reference issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (for ALT1) The source[1] indeed is a memoir. Also the source does not say that it was Indian Army that isolated their own men. The source clearly says that the soldiers of the "Jammu and Kashmir State forces" had Burnt (not Blown) the Wooden bridge. The "Jammu and Kashmir State forces" was a seperate force of the Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) and this force was not a part of the Indian Army then. this is yet another misleading DYK from the author.--DBigXray 12:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussing alt1 is a waste of time if we are going to pass alt 2 instead as per discussion and changes. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If that's the consensus, alright, but I find it less interesting — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT2 still has issues.

...In October 1983 much was made of a cricket match held in Srinagar between India and the West Indies. The Indian team was booed by the assembled crowd, and supporters of the Jamaat-e-Islami waved their green party flags, which resembled but were not identical to the Pakistani flag...

— Kashmir In Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War by Victoria Schofield, Page 132:

Jamait-Tuleba the student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami was the main culprit in shouting anti-India slogans. known for its unsavoury past, Tuleba remained un ashamed of its anti national role.

— Indian Cricket Controversies By K.R. Wadhwaney pg 332
the source clearly say the spectators were are a group of separatists from Jamaat-e-Islami ( a pro pakistani party) and raising thier political views on the sports ground . They do not represent the whole Kashmiri community and the DYK must not passed this view as a slogan by the neutral spectators or use the word Many spectators.--DBigXray 13:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I came to review this nomination after getting a request from BlueMoonset. I hope we can find a hook that is (1) verified, (2) politically neutral, and (3) potentially interesting to people who are not already thoroughly familiar with the subject. I'm not sure that any of the suggested hooks meets these criteria, but it should be possible to find a hook that does.
Regarding the hooks about spectators shouting "Pakistan Zindabad" during cricket matches, I am not particularly surprised (nor interested) that people in Indian Kashmir would cheer against India. I suppose that it is interesting that spectators were cheering for Pakistan in a match between West Indies and India. Consider the following possibility (not ideal, but I think it meets the three criteria):
If that doesn't work for people, there are other facts in the article that could be used as hooks. For example:
  • ALT4 ... that the slogan Pakistan Zindabad ("Long Live Pakistan") was in use several years before the state of Pakistan was formed?
Regardless of what is chosen, it's time to choose something. This arguing should not be allowed to go on forever. --Orlady (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
ALT3 is good and interesting. --SMS Talk 23:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think ALT4 looks indisputable (and honestly that's what this nom needs) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Not only does ALT4 look indisputable, but it's also interesting. Confirming that the hook is supported by an inline source from 1940. Nice one, Orlady, and thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT4 only; neutral, indisputable, and interesting. AGF on offline sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Crisco gave tick to go for ALT4 ONLY. --LauraHale (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Pulled out of queue because article is currently at AFD. --Orlady (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Canceling approved tick while article is at AFD. If the conclusion is "keep", the tick can be restored. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The statement which the DYK hook covers is marked as "citation needed". On hold till the issue is fixed and the tag is removed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The statement is, in fact, still covered by source 8 in the body of the article, among others, as it was when ALT4 was proposed, so DYK's requirement is satisfied. If the intro is found to need inline cites—unusual per WP:LEAD, but not completely unheard of—they can be replicated as necessary from the body. The many citation and other tags will need to be dealt with before approval can be restored, of course. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The article survived AFD. It will need rechecking, given all the attention it has received. --Orlady (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I count approximately two dozen citations that have challenges to them: "not in citation given", "original research?", "non-primary source needed", "better source needed", "vague", and a few others, including a neutrality dispute and an ordinary "citation needed" note. These need to be dealt with in some fashion: there's no way that an article so festooned can be brought to the main page under DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Issues unaddressed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If you can give me a little more time, it will be helpful. I have already started a discussion at the talk, but no one has responded there and I am unable to address the concerns raised by indiscriminate tagging without discussion. --SMS Talk 12:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Pakistan_Zindabad&oldid=1217697529"