Talk:Abaid Ullah Baig

Primary source being preferred over secondary source
Why is primary source (ECGB) being preferred over a secondary source (The Express Tribue)? ! Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 19:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting again and again? You told me to take it to the talk page so I took it. You are making pages look and read awful. Why are you removing the "Political career" section? Why are you stating that he leads in the polls while all the sources state that he won, The Express Tribune which you removed, the SAMAA link which you added awfully into the page both say he won the election, why it is encyclopedic to mention his father's name while no reliable secondary source mentions his father's name? Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 20:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I state he leads in the polls because that's how it is right now. These are unofficial and preliminary results. We can make it say he won after the official results come in. Also what's the big deal with primary sources? Those are even better than secondary sources! You're getting the official info straight from the Election Commission, and this is where people also get election results from (after the results have been reported). News outlets don't have the time to report on stuff like fathers' names and addresses, but if the Election Commission has it well that's useful info that should be put into the article at least in my opinion.


 * Go ahead and have the page though and make it to your liking. I will not edit it again for the next few days (except for the name of the article is "Abaid Ullah Baig" and I will fight for that unless a statement is made by the man himself or the Election Commission otherwise). Peace and have a good day. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I see there are two places of dispute, one is related to the title of article, and the other with content. As the title is concerned, it is used in neutral reliable sources, and also primary sources and I would prefer it, unless something else is proven "common name". For the content case, some facts are sourced from primary sources and it isn't any wrong to do so. If you guys can have a consensus on any specific content here, I would be happy to help. Thanks ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The candidates and election commission officials in Pakistan do not have sufficient English literacy to spell their names properly (English is not their primary language, people know how to spell in Urdu but not in English) but as long as more secondary reliable sources state his name Abaid Ullah Baig, I will be content with that even though I maintain that it is spelled wrongly. As far as the content is concerned we need to state what secondary reliable sources state which is that he has won the election if sources start reporting otherwise then we will mention it otherwise. I am okay with father's name as long as it is mentioned in the infobox instead of the lead the way Abbasi was mentioning making wholesale changes how the article reads, removing the section as well. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you entirely. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)