Talk:Noor Pur Baghan

Unfortunate
It's unfortunate that this article was given as an example of Wikipedia article creation and editing. Its content is mostly primary, unverifiable information directly from its creator, not verifiable secondary sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Tapered (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dude, you are taking the information from New York Times out of context, no where article by Noam Cohen mentions that this article is an example of Wikipedia article creation and editing. Nobody is saying that it is a featured article and independent media organizations are not limited to using best of the best examples. You have to respect what is published and move on. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And you have to respect our policies. I am going to truncate this mess. Anyone without a conflict of interest, as you have, is free to reinstate material provided that it is sourced. We have enough poor articles about villages in Pakistan and India without adding more. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sitush, don't take it personal, there is nothing to be upset or angry about, looks like you are on a rampage to edit this article. I really see a fit of jealousy here. There are numerous pages on Wikipedia which do not have any sources, if you start removing all that information, there will be less than 50% of Wikipedia left of what it is today.

I will like to stress this here that this is a small village which is never featured in news or books and only people belonging to that village can testify about authenticity of material provided in this article. This information trickles down from person to person, from father to son, there was a an ancestry tree document existing which was a proof that Jayapala was one of forefather of the village people and it also mentioned that he fought battles with Mehmood Ghaznavi and Sabuktigin. Unfortunately that document was lost. I was born in that village and i know for sure that every word mentioned in this document is true.

I also testify to the fact that there is not single enhancement done by me to the truth. It will be unfortunate if you continue to remove useful information from this article.

I will like to request here that information be kept there for people with whatever tags you want to put in the article for example refimprove, citation needed and original source.

Again, as i already mentioned that New York Times article does not talk about authenticity of the article, it only talks about Wikipedia editing trends so please do not take this in a wrong way. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, WP:NOR, which is what's being described here. JNW (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Sitush's observation above, WP:COI is a concern. JNW (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it comes under WP:COI, "Wikipedia vs. the Small Screen" is not written by me and the edit has no exaggeration in it. It's as it is mentioned in NYT article. P.S. Your congrat seemed more like a ridicule but believe me I had no role to play in this, I was contacted, I was asked questions and tried my best to answer them, it was editor's choice what he thought is best to put in his article.


 * Moreover, I did not see any policy article which says that it cannot be in the article space.


 * I am not sure why me and the article I started is being punished for that.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no punishment, nor ridicule, but I think you're too close to this, feel some ownership, and are inclined to take this personally. This involves basic policies that have been noticed by several experienced editors. JNW (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I will take my name out of the quote if that is any satisfaction to WP:CIO but that info belongs to that article and needs to go in, on the top, on the bottom, in the middle somewhere. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

War dead
People die in warfare and in big wars they tend to come from a wide range of places. That someone came from a village and died in a war is not usually notable, unless the person was themselves notable. I doubt, for example, that there is a village in the UK that did not suffer a death from WWI or WW2 but you're not going to find the articles for those mentioning those people. It is simply not encyclopaedix.

Noor Pur Baghan is a tiny village and if Wikipedia's attitude to places of habitation were not so screwed-up then it would not merit an article at all. That it does manage to qualify is something that we have to live with but that doesn't mean we stack the article with completely trivial information. Encyclopaedias are not repositories for every little thing known about a subject. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My greatest respect and admiration to all of you experienced editors and admins. I was presented with this article that it was in a need of improvement and i took the task upon myself and researched quite a bit spending a lot of time and found quite good sources about this village only those sources and information to be removed by Sitush, i have personally nothing against him and he mentioned his reasons in the summary lines about why this information and this source should not be in the article. I did not add all of the information back considering his point of view. I only added some piece of information back while addressing Sitush's concerns and i believe, i addressed his concerns pretty well in the summary lines of all those edits specifying as to why i am adding that information back again, now he removed all of the information added by me again.


 * I believe all the sources should be there which were added by me since they add to the credibility of the subject and in case some of them gets removed from the website then some of them would still be available. For example Government of Punjab references for schools do say in there that Noor Pur Baghan is a "Muza" (an Urdu word for village), if we leave those references there, it adds to the credibility that it is a village and it has those schools. Also those refs list the years schools were built.


 * References for War martyrs are only for references purposes and there is a quote that only show up in references, war martyrs are not mentioned in body of article anywhere, they only show up in the references and again for the same purpose of proving that the village existed during the era of WWII, those references should stay there. If mention of War martyrs is a concern then it's okay we can remove the quoted part but keep the source in there. Reference for 1961 census is a book and that is the only book available online which has Noor Pur Baghan listed in there and i think it should stay there as well and this reference is not there to prove the population of the village, only to prove the notability and existence of the village. All there references were unique to find and they should not be removed.


 * Regarding the trivial information about the road, i think it was good to have it there just to inform people that village is connected to major city but if that is too much of a concern then it surely can get removed. That is it for now, i will drop in another note if i have something else to say. I am not here to cause any trouble, i am only here to help. Bhatti Rajpoot (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about the relationship between Bhatti Rajpoot and Sajjad Altaf. There's great similarity here in terms of typography and style, and an unusually strong shared interest in content. And I don't find Bhatti's claim to being new on Wikipedia at all credible. JNW (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's add the most recent incarnation, DJ Baghi, to the list of related accounts. It also looks like there's a bit of WP:POINTY to the edit history. JNW (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm off to bed but this is pretty obvious: an article about a minuscule village that has been owned and now has two recent new and sympathetic contributors using mobiles? I'd say WP:DUCK but something needs to be filed at WP:SPI, if only to settle whether it is one person or a concert party. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Same for me, calling it a night, though the quacking is getting noisy. JNW (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Guys, would you care to explain, what this nonsense is going on, what this gang war is about and why are you teamed up against this article and why I am being mentioned in bad terms by JNW above and why my edits are being reverted? If you have some personal problems with someone, please keep them to him, why are you bringing them to me? Does Sitush owns this article that nobody else can contribute to this page? He needs to review Ownership of articles.


 * Why don't you take out your differences in a boxing ring instead of Wikipedia, if you are so inclined to fight?


 * And for information to your small minds, I picked up the article link from a link in a newspaper article and decided to check out the contribs, did I break some kind of law doing that.


 * Here, if you have not seen that before, http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/technology/wikipedia-vs-the-small-screen.html?referrer — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Baghi (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats for getting quotes in the NYT. That said, it's entirely inappropriate to saturate the ref section with a bunch of completely tangential articles. Thanks to Sitush and others for cleaning this miss up.  I'm not sure of there is a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT issue going on here, but I think there's a pretty good chance it's one or both. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Article state
This version of the article is acceptable. I've looked at the others in the history, and I agree with and  that the information and references in previous versions was not encyclopedic and/or reliable. COI and SPI or not, that information should not be returned. (And many of the photos should go as well.) Drmies (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI result
Regarding the above discussion, please see Sockpuppet investigations/Sajjad Altaf/Archive. JNW (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)