Talk:Faisalabad/Archive 1

Untitled

 * Removed meaningless messages left by anonymous IP's.
 * Redirected Faisalabad District to Faisalabad and Talk:Faisalabad District to Talk:Faisalabad. This is because the city and the district are now exactly the same entity. Green Giant 00:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Lyallpur
So, having originally been named after the man who founded it, the city was renamed after a dead Saudi King who probably didn't even know it existed. Daft indeed, about as daft as naming the main cricket stadium in Lahore after Colonel Gaddafi (whose interest in the game is doubtful, to say the least). I wish Pakistan could take more pride in its own achievements rather than trying to flatter despotic middle-eastern leaders. Sikandarji 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

unexplained edit
On May 17 2006 someone changed the title of a sub-heading, without offering an explanation. The original title was Captures in "the War on Terror", which was changed simply to "events". I don't see how the new subheading is an improvement. Counter-terrorism officials executed a series of raids in Faisalabad on September 11 2002 - the anniversary of September 11, 2001 - arresting dozens of men, many of whom ended up being held in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camps. When that series of raids is described here it will make even more sense to restore the original subheading. Can anyone offer an explanation why the subheading should remain simply "events"? -- Geo Swan 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this Events paragraph is unnecessary and I am removing it. This article is about the city of Faisalabad and captures of a foreign terrorist suspect do not belong in it. I am also tired of everything about Pakistan being somehow tied to "war on terror". ''  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2006 July 5


 * I am sorry you are tired of Americans regarding "everything about Pakistan being somehow tied to the 'war on terror'."


 * Unfortunately, American intelligence officials seem to regard Faisalabad as a hotbed of jihadism, capturing dozens of suspects they shipped to Guantanamo. More specifically, they seem to regard Salafi University as a hotbed of jihadism.  I think that is notable, even if the American intelligence officials bought in to an exagerrated story told by unscrupulous sources, or unscrupulous ISI officials.  --  Geo Swan 01:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Longitude
73 minutes ? Shyamal 09:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:100px-Pk-punj.PNG
The image File:100px-Pk-punj.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unknown words
Does anyone know what "nawar" in Economy sections means? Probably something to do with textile industry.

Similarly, on Economy section we have crop items like raiya, toria, barseen and faalsa, all of which are unfamiliar to me. Quick googling didn't reveal anything useful. --Rayshade (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
This article is likely to be pruned drastically unless people start to provide sources for the numerous statements that currently lack such things. Many are tagged as needing citations but in fact pretty much every statement that omits a source should in fact have one. There are enough people fiddling round the edges of the article who appear to have local knowledge etc and so, please, can someone get to grips with this? - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Map image breaches policy & has been removed
There is currently a deletion discussion taking place at Commons regarding File:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg, which can be viewed. Regardless of whether the map image is deleted at Commons, I think that it needs to be removed from all English Wikipedia articles because it breaches our synthesis policy. The image creator has provided a long list of sources in the deletion discussion and it is evident from those that none contain all of the information shown in the image, nor is it a simple task to work out which bits of information were gleaned from which source(s). We simply do not permit people to aggregate information in this way. It should also be noted that the chances are very high that the various sources did not even adopt the same methodology in compiling their data, which makes the analysis of the creator even more suspect. I have removed the image because the Commons discussion may end up as something other than "delete" and yet the thing is still invalid on English Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Map was deleted on two reasons. 1... Commons deletion discussion but now Deletion request by Sitush has been rejected on Wikimedia Commons. 2... Sitush has a self perception that map is synthesis, which is actually not because it is based on latest research of 2007 in the Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. So I am re inserting it. Unless Sitush prove it again as a synthesis and refer me the areas of map being synthesized also mentioning the different publications along with page numbers where from in his kind opinion I have synthesized the map.Maria0333 (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I refer you to File_talk:Map_on_Dialects_Of_Punjabi_Language.jpg where a centralised discussion has been opened. There is really no point in prolonging this particular thread when the issue affects a lot of articles, hence has taken the initiative of encouraging comment in one place. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are apparently not a local nor a linguist. That is why you cant understand the importance of individual Article's Talk page involved in the current scenario. For example there is a article on District Attock speaking a number of dialects Chachi, Jandali Ghebi and Majhi. Now only local could understand map whenever he visit the article and could use Talk page to discuss his own in put on the areas of districts where he dis agrees with map. So map is relevant for various districts and area's articles. It appears to me that most of editors who are trying to involve me to discussion on Dialects of Punjabi have no knowledge of language or its dialects instead they appear to me a Rote learner of WP rules. Some times lay man in a profession like linguistics could waste a lot of time of a linguist like me. I cant discuss with those who do not have any knowledge on the subject matter because they only cause headache just for sake of time passing on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria0333 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop spouting this personalised and arrogant claptrap. Either take part in the discussion or do not, as you feel fit. Regardless of your participation, the issue here is an image that covers a vast area, many dialects and is used in many articles. Central discussion is the appropriate way to deal with it and my original message in this thread was an explanation for removing that image, which I am pretty much obliged to place where ever I do remove it. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Faisalabad
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Faisalabad's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Climate-Data.org": From Gujranwala:  From Rawalpindi:  From Climate of Faisalabad:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Input needed: Lyallpur, Lyallpur Town and Lyallpur (disambiguation)
Your assistance is needed!

Lyallpur (disambiguation), which currently redirects to this article, has been nominated for deletion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 27. It used to point at Lyallpur when that was a disambiguation page between Faisalabad and Lyallpur Town. Lyallpur Town, apparently a metropolitan area of Faisalabad, was deleted in 2010 in circumstances I don't yet fully understand and Lyallpur redirected to here.

The RfD discussion needs your input on whether Lyallpur Town have an article, and if so what is the primary topic for "Lyallpur" - Faisalabad, Lyallpur Town or the disambiguation page. Please comment at Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 27 to keep discussion in one place. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

City founder not mentioned
It's a shame that Sir Charles James Lyall's name is not mentioned as the founder the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.192.151.124 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Peacock/POV
There's a disagreement about this copy edit made by (with the edit summary of "tightened wording, reduced pov"). In that edit, a lot of peacockery was removed, and also an amount of material about history that was not specifically about Faisalabad and was sourced only to a caste-based source. That edit has been reverted by two accounts and I will not revert their reverts any further. I believe they are in breach of WP:PEACOCK, WP:POV and WP:RS here, and would appreciate any opinions that might lead to a consensus. Mr Potto (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Brought here from Mr Potto's [post] at the noticeboard.


 * I don't know how much consensus Edward321's edit last week had. It does look like there were some good reasons to tighten up wording and remove WP:PEACOCK, but it looks like a lot of decent detail got gutted along with it. The Etymology section breakdown of how the name was coined, if accurate, seems worth retaining. The Early history & Mughal, Maratha and Sikh rule sections have been taken out completely, but sections didn't appear to be obvious POV, at least to me. Was the issue just RS? Some WP:PEACOCK in the British rule section, but seems a lot could have been salvaged. Land cultivation and clock towers, doesn't seem overtly POV.


 * The WP:PEACOCK cuts are fairly straightforward, but I'd recommend editors take Edward321's edit line by line to reach consensus about any POV issues. First time on this article, but it doesn't seem obvious beyond the extra WP:PEACOCK phrases. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Starting with Edward321's edit and re-adding any parts one-by-one that people think were unfairly removed makes sense, and the suitability of the sections can be discussed one by one. But a wholesale reversion to put all the puffery back coupled with an accusation of vandalism does not seem to be the right approach to me. Mr Potto (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The edit was last week, it was a big change, and wasn't discussed. Removing obvious WP:PEACOCK first may be easier. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, let me take a closer look. I'll see which I think is easier, either sticking with Edward321's version or just reworking the puffery-removal. (In cases like this, I do wish editors would do things one section at a time rather than one big change all in one go. Mr Potto (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, looks like you were right, especially about the history removal. The way you proposed it would be easier. There are maybe a few lines that may warrant being put back in. I agree it would have been smoother to make incremental changes, though I do notice some obvious puffery still in the article that hasn't been edited out yet. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool, I'll try making a few changes (like putting the etymology part back for starters, which seems uncontroversial and sourced). Mr Potto (talk)
 * Actually, the bit about combining Lyall's name with the Sanskrit-derived "pur" meaning city is not in the source. It might be obvious, but I don't think we should include it if the source does not specifically say so, as it would be our own OR/SYNTH. Mr Potto (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. If it doesn't have a source or isn't generally accepted then it should probably not be included. I don't know how contentious that claim is either way. The only other things that might be worth returning to the article is the line "clock tower still stands and is known as the symbol of Faisalabad", but only if that is true. It isn't sourced either, so if it isn't contentious it could always be tagged with needing a source. There's a line about the soil of Faisalabad, but that is more an issue about how relevant it is. Not sure if the evapotranspiration line in the climate is good or not, still depends on how relevant editors feel it is. Seems harmless. On things that might be looked at for removal, Cuisine section doesn't contain any sources for content. Looks like a decent enough thing to include, but some sources would be nice. Also a lot of use of the word famous that may be a little much, though mostly occurring in that same section. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that. I think those few unsourced bits can probably go back in with tags too, and the bit about the soil does sound at least harmless. I thought there were too many photos in a few places that really didn't add anything (like a picture of a random road in the Transport section) so I removed a few. I don't have time now, but I'll come back to this tomorrow and will check the sources and carry on with the copy editing. Mr Potto (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this subject on the talk page. So far I'm agreeing with Mr Potto and 70.36.233.104 Edward321 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This article has so much information removed. Can we work on the section to make it better please? I appreciate your help in getting it sorting but this city requires a lot guidance. If you want I am from Faisalabad and am willing to help.--Ellanorani (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure we can replace some of the removed material with better-sourced content. If you can find any sources and list them here for us to investigate, I think that would be a good start. Mr Potto (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Lets create a new section called "History" and work to develop that first and then as we are happy with that section we can create a new section to work on that next. One by one we can make it a good article. :) --Ellanorani (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

purpose?
What is the purpose of this article?

In this edit an anonymous contributor excised the section on "Captures in 'the War on Terror'" with the edit summary:
 * ''"I omitted the section on the "war on terror". This is a page duscussing a great city of a fine nation. A prospective visitor wouldn't want to hear about how many terrorists have been captured there."

I think the anon contributors is mistaken. See WP:NOT.
 * The purpose of articles on the wikipedia is not to make the subjects of the articles seem '''"great".
 * The purpose of articles about cities on the wikipedia is not solely, or even mainly to serve as a promotional guide for prospective visitors. Knowing about how many terrorist suspects have been captured there should not be the sole, or main, purpose of the article.  And it wasn't.  I was only a section of the article.

So I am reinstating that section.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 08:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reasoning (even 8.5 years late)! However, the content you refer to seem to be gone again. 220  of  Borg 04:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Charles James Lyall
This article contains utter nonsense regarding Charles James Lyall. He didn't found the place, the monument presumably is not in his name and, indeed, I doubt that he ever visited the place. Someone has been playing a very poor game of connections.

Charles James Lyall worked in the NW Provinces for about three years & then "Lyall was under-secretary to the revenue, agriculture, and commerce department of the government of India from 1873 until 1879. From 1880 until 1889 he was principally engaged as secretary to the chief commissioner of Assam. In August 1889 he was summoned to Calcutta to officiate as home secretary to the supreme government, in which post he was confirmed in 1890. In 1894 he returned briefly to Assam as acting chief commissioner and then in December 1895, after a year's furlough, took up the post of chief commissioner in the Central Provinces, where he remained until his retirement from the service in July 1898." This is per the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

He died in London in 1920 & is buried in Putney Vale cemetery.

This is exactly what happens when people do not source their information. I'll leave it a few days in case someone wishes to contest this but, really, it is ludicrous. Lyallpur etc probably refers to a completely different Lyall, who was Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab, ie: James Broadwood Lyall.

I would appreciate it if someone local could grab hold of the inscription on the monument because it appears that the image file at Commons is also incorrectly labelled etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It still says the city was named after him, but Lyall's own page doesn't seem to mention it. True or ... ? 220  of  Borg 04:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * James Broadwood Lyall - still needs sourcing but I'm damn sure I am right. I'd rather not use things like this from 2006, this, this, this or this because there are also similar rather poor sources that refer to "Sir Lyall" or Charles, although I think many are mirrors. Plain common sense would do it in the real world, simply based on the careers of the two men/the regions in which they worked. Even Britannica gets it wrong - Charles was never Lt-Governor of Punjab, you see. The inscription on the statue would clinch it, as would a decent history source that we could be sure is not just regurgitating stuff. Might p. 609 of this do the trick, being a near-contemporary source of a learned society? Despite NPOV, I'd rather not go down the "some sources say it is Charles, some that it is James ..." route because I think we have a cumulative error going on here and I'd rather nail it. Hence my photo request. - Sitush (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%! If it is poorly sourced (I didn't look at the ref it has) rip it out. Unfortunately, it won't let me see p.609, or I can't work out how to get to it! If you want to see a real 'mess' see Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple . 220  of  Borg 05:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)