BuzbyBumbles

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Jemima Khan has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. JodyB _talk 11:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you continue making the kinds of edits you have been making to Jemima Khan, I will place another warning here. You are adding information that is not encyclopedic in nature and unnecessary, plus your language is not coherent. Don't add links that are already part of the references. This is not a puff piece - if her mother calls her a straight A student, then that doesn't make her so - we have no objective source confirming that so it is not a fact. Everything relevant is already in Jemima's article, so please stop ruining the article's coherence. Busillis (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Jemima khan

My problem is not so much with the little facts you want to add as much as it is with your language/POV and structuring. You might have noticed that other people have reverted your edits too, so I am not the only one. But because I am familiar with the subject, I feel the need to speak up. You keep repeating the references that are already referenced in the article - this is confusing and weird.

1) There is no record of Jemima being a straight-A student; I am sorry that her mother's word is just not enough for it. As for her being an equestrian, I think that is a fair feature to add. I have read her mother's book too and found her to be - like all mothers - overly fond and quite exaggerating about her children. You can cite certain things from that autobiography but this little fact needs external support to substantiate it. She has been featured in so many articles and yet none of them have ever mentioned this.

2) I think you are right about the Hugh Grant-related Hello! quote - I'm going to take it out. Thanks.

3) Her columns were irregular. If you look at their start according to the Telegraph site, she wasn't writing weekly. As a compromise, I think we should just say that she was a columnist for the Sunday Telegraph during that time.

4) As for the UNICEF details, those were removed because I basically changed the whole thing to the older version - otherwise, I think, if referenced, they are fine additions. However, you have too many details there, the reason we link to the UNICEF biography is so that every little detail like her 2005 trip to Pakistan doesn't have to be dragged the way you do; I think a more compact list of her activities is enough, as is true of all good biographies on Wikipedia.

5) As for six collections - you don't have any source for that. My source says that she produced 3 collections - if you have one that says otherwise, we can change that. She was dealing with a Pakistan-based company and so it is not necessary that she was working on a Western 2 collections per year system. In fact many companies only produce seasonal clothes, so unless you have a source, that remains unchanged.

6) Lastly, she did not cover the "parliamentary and presidential elections" in Pakistan. "Covering" means she was assigned that beat as a reporter; when in fact she was there for just a couple of days before the election and wrote two opinion articles (including the Musharaff interview during that time) - that is not "covering" the election!! This kind of POV is not suited for an encyclopedia.

I am going to make some changes and include your additions with the proper reference format. I hope we can agree on a decent page for her. Busillis (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to add that you keep writing in the entry that "she wrote an article about this on this date" and you've added such details atleast in 3 different places. This is not something you include in an encyclopedia article - if there is any revealing thing in the article about her, you write it and then reference the article; you don't have to mention how she wrote it etc. in the text. It is already mentioned at the end what newspapers she writes for, so that's it. Thanks.Busillis (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I am almost done researching and shaping a coherent article which includes much of what you want to add. But I wanted to point out that I have done some research and there was in fact no such thing as the "Free Pakistan Movement" ... that is how the demonstrations she organized were "styled" but there was actually no such entity or organization created. So, because it shouldn't be confused with the Pakistan Movement and because it is sort of irrelevant how it was "styled", I am just saying that she organized these demonstrations because that is all that happened. You can have a look at the article, I hope you'll talk to me if you find something misplaced rather than just reverting. This way we can come to a compromise rather than just fighting fruitlessly :) Also, if katereardon is your other handle or someone close to you, please there is no need to yell at me. I like articles that are crisp and don't trail off with wandering sentences - that is the only reason I compacted some of your stuff and put the references in the proper format. Thanks.Busillis (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up

Hi There, Here's some of my thoughts:

1) I think her mother's book is a fair source for her parent's marriage. Only Annabel and Jimmy of course know why they married and Annabel has repeatedly stated that her marriage was a way to make sure the children were "Goldsmiths" when they went to school. Annabel talked about it with Jimmy's biographer too - see her article. As for Sheherazade and the languages see speaks - it is actually widely documented that she speaks those given languages - I could've used many sources and so I randomly chose Annabel's book. Similarly, I used Annabel's book about Jemima's show-jumper fact because so many other articles have mentioned and confirmed that too. The thing about Jemima being a straight-A student (although I don't have a hard time believing that she was because she is an intelligent woman) is that it is not corroborated by anything else. She has been profiled often but not one of them ever mentions this fact. This assertion about JK's grades would obviously leave an impression on the reader's mind, so unless we are sure the assertion is true, I think we will be misleading the reader. Let's wait and watch, future profiles/reports could touch on this subject....

3) These are the dates of her first columns: 21/10/07, 4/11/07, 19/11/07 after which she wrote weekly except when she missed it on 9/12/07. So, either we'll have to change the start date to 19/11/07 or not use the word "weekly" - I think the latter is the better option because saying that she was a columnist usually implies that it was weekly. If you feel otherwise, feel free to go ahead change the date and add weekly.

4) I think her connection to Pakistan is self-evident - she has written much about it, and her demonstrations are mentioned. But I've added the 2005 earthquake detail to the page since you feel it's important.

5) How could the business have run for 5 years when it was incorporated on June 16, 1998? I have the actual record of when the business was registered and it clearly states 1998. I checked the article she wrote, and I think she was probably including time she spent assembling and putting together the factory. Her first return was filed on 1999, so I think this one is pretty uncontroversial - since the Telegraph reported closely about her business, I think they are reliable on this and I am convinced she produced 3 collections. Anyway, it is not important to mention how many collections she did, so I am removing it as you suggested.

6) The article she wrote is included as The Politics of Paranoia source in the references (towards the end). And it was a solid piece. First, there was no Presidential election then; second - like I said, "covering" implies that she was there throughout the elections or at least for a substantial time, filing regular reports about what were the hot contests, who was projected to win, the mood, etc. But one report does not mean she was covering it; in fact, in the article she said that she was just in Pakistan as an "observer" - I rest my case.

9) I think you misunderstood me - what I mean is that there was no official organization that was named the Free Pakistan Movement; it was just a name they gave to pull people together to the cause and publicize it. I heard her interview too. Look at the Dawn source - they talked about how it was "styled" (not established) as a FPM and then put it in quotes; the BBC didn't even capitalize the M in movement, which implies they were saying it was not being used as a specific established organization; As for the Guardian, I think the columnist was just following the Brit media's lead on that and she even misspells Zac Goldsmith's name - also, she makes it sound like Jemima is known as Zac's sister, which she isn't, it is usually Zac who is known as Jemima's brother, so I found this op-ed unreliable. Like I said, I have read about it a lot too but only as an arbitrary umbrella that brought British Pakistanis together and not as an established ongoing movement/association. The relevant fact here is that she helped organize those demonstrations, if the "FPM" involved doing anything else, it would be important to list; but since it didn't, I don't see the need for confusing the reader over an arbitrary name.

Have a great weekend! Busillis (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)