Talk:Ruzwana Bashir

Untitled
This person is not notable and I propose deletion. Being Oxford Union President is not notable in itself, nor is winning a scholarship that is given to several graduates a year. --82.45.211.88 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This was recently debated at Articles for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir (4th nomination). Moonraker2 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I don't know who wasted time research this girl, but just because an article is nicely set out and properly wikified doesn't mean it has got any more claim of notability. UFUU (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The afd has dealt with notability. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read it, but it didn't make very convincing reading. UFUU (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

COI
I see why 80.225.145.0 complains in an edit summary about Sirbobsir and Sirbobsir123, but what both have done to the article is to delete material, not to add it, and few of the deletions have survived long. So I don't feel the template is needed here. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I am about to remove a new template, as we have been here before and no new reason for deletion is suggested. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Ruzwana Bashir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100220175923/http://archive.thisisbradford.co.uk:80/2004/1/27/103684.html to http://archive.thisisbradford.co.uk/2004/1/27/103684.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070822050025/http://www.minervaonline.it/concorso_donna_maggio.htm to http://www.minervaonline.it/concorso_donna_maggio.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ruzwana Bashir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110317001535/http://www.fulbright.co.uk/about-fulbright/who-we-are/past-fulbrighters-case-studies/ruzwana-bashir to http://www.fulbright.co.uk/about-fulbright/who-we-are/past-fulbrighters-case-studies/ruzwana-bashir

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Boris Johnson Sex Scandal Dossier
Information with legitimate refs about this topic was removed without an explanation, especially since it should be discussed with the editor who added the information. Please discuss this here before removing it again. Since several reputable news sources have confirmed this link between Boris Johnson and Bashir regarding the Sex Scandal, it should be mentioned in this article. At most, this information could be moved to another section, such as "Personal life", but it should not be removed altogether. It seems like only positive/pr/puffery information is published in this article, but any information (with reputable sources) that mentions otherwise is removed. That is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. Daily Mail was not used as a source, but several other reputable news sources were used.--Ranadia (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ranadia: This newly added section was removed because it's not significant moment in Bashir's life or achievements. It relates to the publication of a 4000 page dossier on Boris Johnson, which includes a short reference to a 14-yr old article by the Daily Mail stating there were rumours that a "friendship is blossoming' between Johnson and Bashir. That original article was taken down by the Daily Mail several years ago and Bashir has denied any relationship. The original Daily Mail article is already referenced on this page and a new link to the Sunday Times article on the dossier has been added in the Oxford career section. This Controversy section added here is not relevant in Bashir's biography and is salacious and disparaging.


 * It is really not decent to just remove this information before coming to a resolution here on the talk page. That is a basic rule on WP. You do not seem to be willing to abide by the WP policies regarding the removal of information, since you are blatantly removing the info on your own terms, when the info has legit refs. That is what all articles on WP are based on. Daily Mail was not used as a source in this article, but other reputable news outlets have been referred to. Therefore, there is no reason to remove this information.--Ranadia (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ranadia - I'm not as familiar with best protocol so happy to work with the talk page here. The source articles have entirely different messaging to the sentences that have been added here. The Mirror states that there were "Reports of a 'special friendship' between Mr Johnson and Ruzwana Bashir, the 'stunning' president of the Oxford Union in 2004." The Sunday Times reports "Mail on Sunday diary publishes piece on Johnson and Ruzwana Bashir, the then 20-year-old president of the Oxford Union: “I am informed that a special friendship is blossoming between the magazine’s [The Spectator’s] editor, Boris Johnson, and Ruzwana Bashir, the stunning president of the Oxford Union.” They both reference the same Daily Mail article that is already referenced to in this Wikipedia page (and has been taken down by the Daily Mail), and neither of these source outlets come close to suggesting that Bashir was a mistress or involved in a sex scandal. The additions here seem to be malicious and intended to disparage, as well as being libelous with no support from the linked articles. Not sure how WP can justify this staying up here. They should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGSmith (talk • contribs) 06:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)