Talk:First 100 days of Imran Khan's prime ministership

Competition ended due to protests in Pakistan


I am really sorry to see your language, how you can claim that your edits are good and some one other's edit are bad? There can be multiple POVs and angling on same set of story, but dubbing them good or bad are not your right? From the entire news story you concluded that protest ended because of dead threats, and Pakistan govt. claimed success, you subtracted every thing else, ok that might be your POV , but other people have also right to read the story and give it neutral angle.

Sydney news which is very reputable international journal has said "Dutch anti-islam lawmaker cancels Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest after strong reaction by Pakistan govt" Even the news source you quoted doesn't reflect,  It starts with tweet of "AP BREAKING: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker cancels Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that sparked Pakistan protests." clearly indicates that they cancelled at after Pakistan protests. You could see The Guardian, You could see ABC news Even The telegraph, quoted SMQ's statement that cancellation is great moral victory of Islamic world ,.

You did the same in Gondal's story, you forced Imran Khan into it. Although i have no affiliation with him, but let honestly say i can give you two dozen reference, which quote that he has nothing to do with the story. You forced your POV in all edits, fine but atleast you must talk to other people in better way.

Despite the story itself, or your POV on the story. I was expecting that senior editor like you will maintain a relationship of mutual respect and will address other colleagues with politeness. I am seriously disappointed the way you are forcing your version of story and calling others bad.

Dr Shahzad Bhatti (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me put everything into perspective here for you, first of all I did not call your edits bad and mine good, you are misquoting me. I noted about that one specific edit of yours that it has something good mixed with something bad. Your summary line on that edit states "added Fayaz ul Hassan Chohan apology" but your actual edit adds Chohan apology plus it makes POV changes into the content about contest cancellation. This was an attempt to sneak POV content while giving an innocent summary line. That is why I called your edit good mixed with bad. Chohan apology was good but removal of sourced claim of Pakistani government that contest cancellation was due to their stance was bad. Then you added that the contest was cancelled due to the march by TLP but both ABC and Tribune source clearly state that the individual who was organizing this damned contest cancelled it due to death threats, yes sources do mention the protest in Pakistan but no source clearly says that it got cancelled due to those protests.
 * Here is what the Tribune story states about why it got cancelled Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders on Thursday said he has decided to cancel the controversial blasphemous caricatures contest after being at the receiving end of death threats. this implies that he cancelled it due to threats
 * This does not imply that contest got cancelled due to the protests, it says it sparked protests and that is true that it did but did it get cancelled due to the protests, no, the source does not say that BREAKING: Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker cancels Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that sparked Pakistan protests.
 * Here is what implies that Pakistan government took credit for the cancellation In his media talk, the foreign minister congratulated the nation on their moral victory, and termed the cancellation a diplomatic victory for Pakistan., how is it victory for Pakistan if he cancelled it due to threats and not due to pressure from Pakistan
 * To go further the Urdu language tweet by Fawad Chaudhry quoted in Tribune source states that Cancellation of blasphemous caricature contest is a great victory of Pakistan's government and people, today message and guidance from prime minister and contacts from foreign office became the reason for cancellation these two statements from two separate ministers support the content that "Pakistan government took the credit that the cancellation was due to their stance"
 * As for the sources you included in your comment above, please allow me to grill them one by one, the first one is a tweet and you cannot just use a sole tweet as a source, the Guardian source also says Geert Wilders drops plans for controversial contest in November following death threats, nowhere it says that it got cancelled due to the protests
 * Finally, let us assume that the contest ended due to the protests in Pakistan, then still how is it the victory for Pakistani government and how does it make space on this article. This article is about the performance of the government not about the performance of TLP. Is TLP in the government?


 * Regarding Bushra Bibi playing the role in demotion of DPO through prime minister, here is what the source says Gondal has been removed on the direction of Imran Khan after Bushra Bibi took up the matter with him. So, no my friend, I am not the one who is including POV in the article, actually most of the article has all good and praise for the government and that is all written by me but I am not going to exclude anything negative from the article as it is against WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR, no matter if you or others like it or not. You can get in the line of many others who tried to censor my edits, it is not going to be mitha mitha hup hup and kaora kaora thoo thoo (Translation: we will gobble up the sweet but spit out the bitter)! Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into debate with you, you made the edits, its ok ,if you think you POV is valued , let it be like it. The only problem is your attitude, you talk and write very rudely i just asked you to be polite. For example again in your comments you are doing the same.
 * You are assuming that i am tricking that i am mislabeling the edits, and try to get around with good mixes with bad ones. Firstly you deciding good and bad according to your POV, which suits you or not. Secondly , you are imposing your POV without respecting others. Again i can prove that there are multiple angles in all of the above news, multiple news sources suggest stories differently. This is how your are interpreting the news. Anyways , i am fine with your edits the only problem is why you are treating me.
 * You are assuming that i am party to some political opinion, and i am doing according to , we will gobble up the sweet but spit out the the bitter.
 * This is what i am trying to ask you dear, that you have your POV, its not necessary that your POV is always correct, and other POV is always wrong . Your other colleagues are not always working with bad intent.
 * You are much senior editor then myself, i am new to this world, I expect polite attitude from your side. Let me put it this way things can be done in cordial ways too. Cheers
 * Dr Shahzad Bhatti (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not my POV, it's what the sources say, we go by the sources here, neither your POV nor mine and I was not rude with you, you did not see the rude behavior yet. Saying good edits were mixed with bad was criticism and it is accepted and does not make it rude. Believe me I have been here much before you and have seen much rude behavior as well, I can give you some examples if you want, just start searching my username by typing User:SheriffIs... and that is just the tip of iceberg. So, please stop complaining about little things, you have much to see yet! Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 12:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not my POV, it's what the sources say, we go by the sources here, neither your POV nor mine and I was not rude with you, you did not see the rude behavior yet. Saying good edits were mixed with bad was criticism and it is accepted and does not make it rude. Believe me I have been here much before you and have seen much rude behavior as well, I can give you some examples if you want, just start searching my username by typing User:SheriffIs... and that is just the tip of iceberg. So, please stop complaining about little things, you have much to see yet! <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; 12:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Sections
Write now it doesn't look standard form of an article as it should be, and it just detailed all the day-by-day happening instead it should dictates only the major events, policies and events not gossips, media mishaps or other party members personnel incidents. The following section should be included and expanded lated on:


 * Pledges
 * Austerity Measures
 * Cabinet
 * Notable non-Cabinet positions
 * Domestic Policy
 * Foreign Policy
 * Protests
 * Rallies
 * Media Coverage

, please look into it, I will help later on. Nauriya, Let's talk - 10:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC).
 * I don't think it has to follow the structure of other articles and at this point there is not much happening except talk. If there is no policy then we cannot call the sections "Domestic Policy" and "Foreign Policy", one spat with US State Department does not make it policy. I am of the opinion that 100 days article will be a lot better if we kept it listed as day by day activity and performance of the government. It goes well with the concept of 100 days. 100 days are when a government is starting to kick gear and I think the article should detail all the notable activities. Also, you said there is gossip in it, I don't add gossip, to me every thing I added was important and notable and reflects the functioning and performance of the government. The bigger article is Prime Ministership of Imran Khan, that would just take the most important stuff. <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; 12:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would second that. At the moment, it is easier for the sake of navigation and readers to format it on a day-by-day basis. Maybe once the 100 days are complete, we can worry about organising it into comprehensive sections.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You should check this  --Saqib (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good one.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)