Talk:Omar Abdullah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IP 70.78.86.89[edit]

Pls do not keep adding point of views to the page. Pls discuss on the discussion page before adding non verifiable information. Lost 01:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


From the current editor:

  • I fail to see how stating facts is vandalizing.
  • It is a fact that:
  • -Most people consider the election of Mr Abdullah as undemocratic.
  • -It is a fact that he suffered a humiliting defeat in the assembly elections.
  • -It is a fact that most senior party members defected from the NC after his nomination as peresident.
  • -If I were vandalizing, I would delete most other facts such as his election to the Lok Sabha (Which I did not).
  • -Please research the topic first, before considering my points as "nonsense".
  • Have yourself a good one.
All I am saying is that wikipedia needs sources to cite whatever you are citing. If you can cite sources for your additions, its ok. Else the comments will be reverted again. -- Lost 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The general public using Wikipedia and wanting to research Mr Omar Abdullah would benefit from knowing his political standing in Kashmir.

  • I wonder how it would benefit a Wikipedia user to know that Mr Omar Abdullah likes horseback riding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.86.89 (talk • contribs)
Yes, to improve the quality of the stub, such trivial info can be taken out. However, comments added by you, such as:
  • Many see his take over of the NC party leadership as a non-democratic carry-over of an autocratic system
  • His nomination as the new president of the NC party saw many resignations from senior party leaders
  • As a sign of the discontent with the Abdullah Familie's monopoly on the party
  • remains active, although shunned by the local populace

need citations from good sources, else they will be considered points of view. -- Lost 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

I will shortly be rewriting the entire article as per MoS:BIO. Please feel free to add your valuable inputs. -- Lost 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-pakistani Vandalism on Omar Abdullah article[edit]

Today, I have come across vandalism at Omar Abdullah page from Last edit to Last edit after Vandalism by 91.72.158.111 Changing all Jammu and Kashmir wiki links to Indian administered Kashmir etc, which is blatant vandalism --Ekabhishek (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Democratically elected Chief Minster cannot be called a puppet. The shopian case was finally proved to be a fraud.Lacks neutrality to say the least Gs44631 (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar abdullah and wife separated? the 'early life and eduction' section has a reference [13] but there is no mention of this on the reference link itself.--Anmolsharma.141 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Kashmir[edit]

I have removed the Greater Kashmir sources as its biased non reliable self published source. Also one fact was solely supported by it, so I have removed it too. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

I've removed the a large part of the section because of the following reasons:

  • The text contains the events that have happened in Kashmir during Mr Omar's office, this is not criticism. It is news and therefore still does not belong in wikipedia (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)
  • A lot of text criticizes the Central Reserve Police Force not Mr Omar, and there is no reference that Mr Omar had initiated the actions of the Central Reserve Police Force.
  • The text contained further information about the 2009 Shopian rape and murder case which did not have any significance to the criticism of Omar Abdullah, that text should be included in the article 2009 Shopian rape and murder case not here.

--Farah DesaiTalk 15:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Abdullah Twitter Info[edit]

I have made contribution in the page of Omar Abdullah but contents have been removed by editor. The contribution was as following: "Omar Abdullah is very famous on Twitter. He has crossed 4lakh followers. Infact he is very active and he interacts with his followers on twitter. His twitter handle is @abdullah_omar. Someone also make his parody profile (fake with wity and humour) on twitter as well. Parody account handle is @abdullah_0mar. Difference in handle is of 'O' and Zero."

But according to editor it is unnecessary contribution. How you can say that it is unnecessary? Even someone has posted about his only movie where he acted. Then that should also be unnecessary movie information. As you know, Twitter is getting very famous these days. Politicians and Celebs are interacting with their supporters/fans regulary via tweets. Day by day it is becoming signature for everyone.

Let the world knows about his twitter profile. Is it wrong in sharing this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homespun33 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could say that for many other politicians/celebrities, that doesn't mean we need to write another separate section about how many followers he has or how active he is--this is not encyclopaedic. If there are multiple reliable sources mentioning about him having any significant social media presence, then at most, we could write a single statement about this under the "Personal life" section. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ugog Nizdast :No problem I will write 2-3 lines of his twitter profile under his "Personal life". I hope at least. you would agree to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajivgupta33 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've added the same thing again, just in a different section. Please stop your disruption. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ugog Nizdast,

I don't know whats your problem. I think you are taking this matter on your ego. I have checked your Talk with Rajivgupta33 and I had observed that you are hellbent to make sure that he could be bogged down to you. Please check my discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Electric_Wombat#Omar_Abdullah_Twitter_Info and I request you DON'T PUT YOUR NOSE INTO IT UNTIL AND UNLESS WE'VE PROPER CONSENSUS. Still discussion is underway. Is Submission of external link wrong? Just added one line and Which I we came out with the discussion with other Wikipedia contributor. I hope this clarifies to you. I don't think adding one line of twitter is irrelevant, if yes then you have to remove infinite number of content from infinite number of pages. Earlier I am in discussion with Electric Wombat and we come out with this conclusion. I am continually reiterate, please don't jump on it and I am still in discussion and so far addition of one with external link looks good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homespun33 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Homespun33: You (and Rajivgupta33) seriously need to calm down about this. No, we cannot add "he has so and so followers" and about parody accounts; it's unencyclopaedic (see What Wikipedia is not).
Yes, we can add a link to his social media profile under the "External link" section but that's not in the edit. I don't know why you're so persistent about adding this irrelevant information. I won't remove it till you respond. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in us arguing about this. If you both are not agreeing about a editing guidelines/policy, what else can be done? Our pages on Indian people, as you may have noticed, are rarely in any decent condition, that doesn't mean those shouldn't be cleaned up as well. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ugog Nizdast, I am extremely sorry if you are thinking that I am doing all this deliberately. Yes, earlier I had submitted the info in New section and then after discussion I removed that one. Again after discussion I cut down the lines and posted it in his personal section. All these changes came via discussion and still you are thinking I am not agreeing about editing policy. Right now it is most refine info just one line with external link and still you are not ready to accept. Please tell me what should I do? While other editors are fine with this info. Please wait for some days and let other editors give their point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homespun33 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Homespun33: You have been edit warring over this since January, atleast four different experienced users have told you this content is not acceptable. Yet you still kept undoing them. The editor who you referred too also told you the same, I don't know how did you misunderstand it. Then when I removed it and you continued and even made bit uncivil comments...
Now you say "wait for more editors to pitch in for consensus"? This isn't even a valid content dispute...the content is promotional and unencylopaedic. Any other experienced editor in my place would have removed it immediately instead of wasting time explaining it again and again. If anybody needs consensus, it's you...as the person who added it. If you think by edit warring, you can achieve your way here, then you are mistaken.
My patience is wearing thin, my friend. You both are new editors here and there's a lot for you to learn. Please, take your time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidlines and try editing then--I can help you. I request you to remove it yourself or let me do it. If you continue, this is my final reply and you are going straight to the Admin's noticeboard. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The citations provided were only passing references. This looks like promoting the parody account. That's not what we do here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Omar Abdullah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omar_Abdullah&oldid=1197846457"