Talk:Salman Taseer

"Social media" section excised
Social media reactions to the death of a politician are not worthy of mention, just as social media reactions to other world events are not (in general) worthy of note. There are several reasons I have removed the section, and I am listing them below in order of importance:


 * The article is almost entirely devoted to the circumstances surrounding his death as it stands, and the section on his death could do without fluff.
 * There are two opposing POV being propagated in the social media section, neither of which have a place in an encyclopedia article. Whether or not a statistically insignificant number of people condemned his death or praised his murderer is not relevant, unless said people are well known prior to the events in question.
 * Opinions are attributed to non-entities using weasel words. For example: "...with numerous journalists and media personalities expressing their sadness over the passing of Taseer and the growing Islamisation and moral collapse of the country..." Which journalists and media personalities? The article cited here does not mention this at all. I am certain that it is true, of course, but unverifiable and irrelevant statements are useless in an encyclopedia. Another example: "Outrage against the gunman was prevalent on Twitter..." In the year 2050, what evidence will there be to support this statement outside of this lone Wikipedia article? (this point edited in on 25 April) 113.203.201.26 (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The section is incoherent and meanders aimlessly. For example, an uninterrupted span of 98 words is devoted to describing a page on a website known as "Millat Facebook", without even the pretext of reporting its position on the assassination (this is in addition to the fact that had an opinion been issued by the page, it would not be not worthy of mention in this biography). The section ends by quoting a rant about tolerance in Islam from an unidentified social media user. There are no quotation marks, so that this "quote" is indistinguishable from the actual text of the article.
 * A number of the sources linked to included are barely notable, in addition to being only marginally relevant. This leads me to suspect they are included only as a means of self promotion. Examples include "Pakteahouse.com" or "emuslim.com" (in addition to a link to a Youtube video).

In the interests of full disclosure, I am Pakistani, and have a strong personal opinion regarding the laws related to the assassination of Salman Taseer. However, I am sure we can all agree that the propagation of original points of view (those favorable to us, as well as those we disagree with) is not the domain of an encyclopedia.

Dear 173.33.38.255, Please always sign your comments by ending with ~.

When you want a discussion on talk page before page-reverting plz post a note in the talk pages, more so because talk page edits by IP are often not very constructive and biased as can be seen here. Further, you've admitted your Pakistani nationality and "strong personal opinion regarding the laws related to the assassination of Salman Taseer" - I presume this to be a support for the Blasphemy Law. Every language Wikipedia has its bias - Bengali WP speaks of tons atrocities by Pak forces in the 1971, partly supported by facts and partly not. Similarly Korean Wikipedia speaks about Japanese army atrocities during the World War, Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia have different versions of events, all of which may not NPOV. Urdu Wikipedia refers to Malik Mumtaz Hussain Quadri as Ghazi and Salman Taseer as Blasphemer. But English Wikipedia requires an unbiased approach, uninfluenced by religion. So plz keep your emotions at bay.

Social media comments are noted here to only highlight public opinion. And this is there since several months.

Also, I am surprised at your criticism of a comment regarding liberal nature of Islam. Do you mean assassination of Salman Taseer, Shahbaz Bhatti, Maulana Naeemi, etc and murder attempts on the lives of Malala Yousuf Zai, Asma Jahangir, Abdus Sattar Edhi, Gauhar Shahi, Parvez Musharraf, etc are sanctioned by faith? Does this effort which you are initiating not prick your national and religious sentiments? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC).

Please do not attempt to guess at my opinions, since they are not relevant here. My personal opinion regarding the blasphemy laws is the opposite of what you have surmised it to be, and I am not religiously inclined.

I had already posted this section in the talk page before you had reverted the edit, and had mentioned it in my edit summary (although evidently you missed this the first time you rolled back my edit).

My emotions are very much "at bay", I assure you. Regarding the only actual point you have raised, the fact that this content has been on the article for several months in no way vindicates its existence. I also find it interesting that you have neglected to address any of the concerns I have raised regarding the quality and relevance of the section, and have instead chosen to focus on my identity and motives.

Finally, I did not "criticise" any comments regarding the liberal nature of Islam. It may or may not be liberal, this is not relevant in any way to the article. My objection to the quote (and the entire section for that matter), is that it is incoherent and off topic.

Thanks for the heads up regarding signatures.

173.33.38.255 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you have failed to respond to my attempt to discuss this, I will put up a RfC in order to get some outside input. 113.203.201.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC) (edited to fix punctuation) 113.203.201.26 (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should a section on social media reactions to a politician's death be removed from their bio?
A section on social media reactions to the assassination of this politician should not be included in their biography, since these are not relevant to the subject of the article. This section should be removed.

The section has several other (unrelated) problems, which I have outlined in detail on the talk page. Briefly: the section is incoherent and poorly punctuated, quotes unverifiable sources, and includes links that are very likely being used solely for self promotion. In addition, the section uses language such as "wholeheartedly" or "sheepishly" to describe the reactions of the parties it discusses, which betrays an underlying POV.

Survey

 * Support removal of the social media section. It is not relevant and is poorly written. 113.203.201.26 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the section is important and adds significantly to the article. 113.203.201.26 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, I can understand that the suction has been given undue weight in the reaction section, but it is verified and if written neutrally and in a summary style, a short paragraph (say two or three sentences) would not be undue weight IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you care to make these changes yourself? I can't see any content worth salvaging in that section, but it is probably worth it to try and save important content than to nuke it outright. Since discussion seems to have stalled, and there is no significant opposition to removal of the section, I will remove the section tomorrow. If you cannot find the time to whittle down the section before then, please go through a revision to identify any content you want to keep and edit it back in. Thanks. 113.203.188.67 (talk)


 * Support removal (invited here by RFC bot)  Editor-selected posts and pages from social media is not useful.  Other policy arguments could also be made....those could go either way, but I think that those also lean towards taking it out. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Include only the few reported in actual news sources, using the link to the news source.  DGG ( talk ) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal except the few mentioned in conventional news sources per DGG. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal Social media reaction evidently not notable, in context. At the very least, the text of the relevant section should be severely edited and the "samples" of tweets, etc, should be removed. -The Gnome (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Social media reactions would have to be better covered by reliable secondary sources to be included.  Andrew327 14:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

POV reference
I would suggest that the sentence "Taseer made headlines when he favoured the Christian Pakistani woman, Asia Bibi, who had been sentenced to death for blasphemy" is POV. To oppose someone being killed for blasphemy is not "favouring" them, but being merciful.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Salmaan Taseer. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20121002235219/http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/04/2000634/top-pakistani-officials-murder.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/04/2000634/top-pakistani-officials-murder.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request
Change "On 29 February 2016 the assaulter of Taseer was hanged at the Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi.[8]"

To: "On 29 February 2016 his murderer was hanged at the Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi."

Taseer wasn't assaulted, he was murdered, and seeing as Qadri was convicted and hanged, it's not a BLP violation.
 * ✅ - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Incarceration"
This section needs to be put in context. When? Why? Etc. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2017
Reigion; I believe it does'nt matter, but about Salman Taseer it's disinformation that: 182.186.16.201 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: - the information is not cited, but neither is your claim that it is disinformation - so I have tagged it for now - Arjayay (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it, as not only unsourced, but a bit dubious, having been recently changed. Also per this -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Salmaan Taseer. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110215350/http://www.salmaantaseer.com:80/meet_govd.aspx?m=3&a=fl to http://www.salmaantaseer.com/meet_govd.aspx?m=3&a=fl
 * Added tag to http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/dec/22/remembering-a-personality-1.asp

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) 03:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

when was his son released
says here his son was released "a few months" after the murderer was hanged. The article about the kidnapping of his son says he was "recovered" on March 8, which is only a few days later. Which is correct?