Talk:Mohammad Nasim Faqiri

Identity questions
It is possible the scholar and diplomat are merely namesakes of the party secretary... 14:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Geo Swan (talk)

Bad referencing
I would like to point out that the claim that Faqiri "was appointed Secretary General of the organization by Burhanuddin Rabbani in October 2008" is cited to three sources, the latest of which was published in 2006! WP:Competence is required. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[And I would point out that none of the sources at the time mentioned him in that role, and that the source added since makes no mention of Burhanuddin Rabbani or October 2008. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ]

I would also point out that this source makes no mention of him being a diplomat. The only source we have for this is this one which simply lists "Mr Mohammad Naseem Faqiri (Counsellor)" as accompanying the "Ambassador of The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" on a ceremonial visit to Australia's Governor General in November 2005. Whilst this is (barely) sufficient to state "He has also worked as a diplomat in Australia", it is really not sufficient to list "diplomat" in the opening sentence. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

explanation
Another contributor keeps challenging who should be called a diplomat.

Anmbassador is (generally) the title used for the SENIOR diplomat of posted to represent the interests of one country, in another country. They have more junior diplomats who answer to them. In addition to the embassy, they may he Consulates in other regions where more local representation is useful. Depending on the size of the mission, they may have scientific attaches or military attaches working under them. Depending on the size of the mission the titles of their senior deputies vary.

These individuals are all diplomats.

Even junior staff, the people who do relatively less important tasks, like processing visa applications, are diplomats.

Wikipedia has a clause specifically for diplomats, just as it has a clause specifically for politicians -- WP:DIPLOMAT. I just checked that clause. My recollection is that it used to say all Ambassadors qualified for special notability consideration, implying more junior diplomats don`t. Currently it says “have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance”.

However, the wording of WP:DIPLOMAT is irrelevant, as no one is claiming Faqiri is an ambassador or that he merits the special consideration of WP:DIPLOMAT. But he was, nevertheless, described as a diplomat in an WP:RS, so it is completely appropriate for him to be described as a diplomat in this article. Geo Swan (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Rejection of explanation
We have almost nothing about Faqiri's purported diplomatic career -- only a single passing mention. This means that we have no indication whether it was lengthy and prominent, or short and obscure. This means we should not give it WP:UNDUE weight by mentioning it in the opening sentence. 'Politician' generally covers some degree of diplomatic activity -- such prominent and bald description as a "diplomat" would mislead many readers into believing that he was a career diplomat -- as opposed to a politician who apparently dabbled a little. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don`t know how many embassy`s Hamid Karzai`s Foreign Ministry maintains. They probably maintain embassies in all the countries that have troops stationed in Afghanistan. They probably maintain embassies in foreign countries that offer Afghanistan a significant  amount of foreign aid.  The one reference we found lists Faqiri as the embassies "Counselor". It also states that the embassy in Australia has a "Third Secretary". Someone with the title "Secretary" at an embassy is not an actual Secretary, any more than the Secretary of Defense is an actual Secretary.  A secretary is a reasonably senior position.  And Faqiri was listed first.  He was more senior than the Third Secretary.  Was he the 2nd or 3rd in command at the embassy?  Yeah, probably.


 * You complained earlier, that the references to Faqiri serving as Party spokesman and Party Secretary mainly dated to 2005. Actually, your google search may not have included the alternate transliteration -- Mohammad Naseem Faqiri.  If you used that transliteration as well you would see that most of those references date to 2004-2005 and 2010-2011.  Do we know what he was doing in 2006, 2007, 2008.  Maybe during those years he was serving as a diplomat.


 * So, how senior a diplomat was Faqiri? Not an Ambassador, so not within the top dozen, or two dozen.  But certainly within the top 100.


 * When his obituary is written, is it going to list his diplomatic service in the first sentence or first paragraph? I would be very surprised if it did not.  Even if he only served as a diplomat for months, not years.  Being a diplomat carries cachet.  It is important.  Stating he was a diplomat in the first sentence is not undue weight.


 * As before, if you really think it is undue weight, and merely say so in the afd, and the afd concludes as delete, first, you save your energy, second, you save the good faith of those contributors who are making their best attempts to improve the article. If the article survives the afd, well, why don't you wait for that, before you try to make any changes to the article.  If the article survives the afd, and you feel you can make positive contributions, even though you worked hard to get the article deleted, by all means go ahead.


 * As to your assertion that "'Politician' generally covers some degree of diplomatic activity..." I doubt that. Consider George W. Bush -- who never owned a passport prior to becoming President.  Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

please be more careful
This edit obfuscated important information -- that Faqiri held a national office, delegate to the 2010 Peace Loya Jirga, and that, while there, he was quoted as arguing for reconciliation with the Taliban. I am going to assume this was a good faith mistake. I reverted this edit. Geo Swan (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please get a fracking clue!
The edit in question reduced the length of the article by one single character (a single carriage return removed) -- NO MATERIAL WAS REMOVED --all that happened was the a citation was moved to the end of the material cited to it. WP:Competence is required. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit obfuscated two important sentences, essentially hiding them in the reference, rather than in the body of the article, where they belonged. I extended to you the assumption of good faith, and assumed that this was an accident, carelessness, a good faith mistake.  Please don't force me to regret the good faith I am trying to show you through abusive comments.


 * As to your adding of the cn template -- you are not a newbie. You must be aware that almost all contributors consider a single instance of each relevant reference, per paragraph, is sufficient.  Very few contributors feel that placing additional instances of a reference on each sentence within the paragraph adds anything.  Rather referencing every single clause makes for cluttered articles that are hard to read.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The original problem was that I neglected to cut&paste the starting tag along with the rest of the citation (most probably because it was separated from the rest of the citation by a carriage return). A storm in a teacup exacerbated and obfuscated by your rhetoric and lack of clarity. My original edit summary said "mv cite" -- so that, and the fact that I did not remove any actual text, should have told you what my actual intent was. All you needed to do was either (i) move the tag yourself to its correct new place, or (ii) revert my edit as "malformed" or similar -- or explicitly telling me that I had moved article-text inside a citation (rather than the very vague "obfuscated important information"). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but are you trying to say your mistake was my fault?


 * So far I think I have managed to keep my comments about your edits civil. Please don't make this hard for me by using inflammatory language, or leveling accusations.


 * Your characterization of my concern over your mistake, as a "storm in a teacup" is quite unfair. Let's be clear here, your action hid one of the three or four most important facts about Faqiri. That makes it more likely that your efforts to get the article deleted will succeed.  Given that you have devoted a lot of energy to get the article deleted I just can't understand why you don`t realize how bad this looks.  Now, if you hadn't dedicated hours to trying to get this article deleted, no one would wonder whether this was more than a good faith mistake.


 * I can't understand why you aren't acknowledging how many doubts you are going to trigger as to whether you are operating from good faith, when you engage in the kind of extensive editing you do to articles that are before afd, when you have offered a "delete" opinion.


 * I can't understand why you don't realize how easy it would be for you to avoid ever having anyone wonder about your motives in editing articles after you have gone on record as wanting to get that article deleted -- if you confined yourself to comments on the afd page. Geo Swan (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm telling your post gave no useful information on what my mistake was -- so gave me no help in correcting it, or understanding what legitimate concern you might have. And I continue to suggest that your rhetoric over what was a single misplaced tag is indeed "a storm in a teacup". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mohammad Nasim Faqiri. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=79300
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.pajhwok.org%2Fen%2F2011%2F01%2F20%2Fjia-see-leadership-changes-faqiri&date=2011-07-17 to http://beta.pajhwok.org/en/2011/01/20/jia-see-leadership-changes-faqiri
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.swedishcommittee.org/archive/articles/articles/2004/karzainewcabinet/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?105051
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?114760
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/180026/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-00000-00---off-0acku--00-00-10-0---0---0direct-10---4---0-1l--11-en-50---20-about---00-0-1-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=acku&cl=CL1.38.44
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-00000-00---off-0acku--00-00-10-0---0---0direct-10---4---0-1l--11-en-50---20-about---00-0-1-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=acku&cl=CL1.38.44&d=HASH376417f8791f31518c2549
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-00000-00---off-0acku--00-00-10-0---0---0direct-10---4---0-1l--11-en-50---20-about---00-0-1-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=acku&cl=CL1.38.44&d=HASH9515644040adadd6994922
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?e=d-00000-00---off-0acku--00-00-10-0---0---0direct-10---4---0-1l--11-en-50---20-about---00-0-1-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-00-0-0-11-1-0utfZz-8-00&a=d&c=acku&cl=CL1.38.44&d=HASH01b8baa4d179d8fd4fde0f

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)