Talk:Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy

Untitled
Why is the title Obaid-Chinay when the rest of the article uses Obaid-Chinoy? The latter appears to be the correct spelling from watching her documentaries on TV. Someone with more wiki experience, please change this as I don't know how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.61.114 (talk) 30 December 2007

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017
the current controversy needs to be explained in greater detail, I could do so if allowed to edit? 176.204.95.148 (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017
It seems that the user Sameirk (talk) has fully reverted and removed the Controversy section during the semi-protected phase of this page. The semi protection was added due to recent continuous blanking of the Controversy section. Can the change be undone and page fully locked? I am the original requester of the page protection. Zkashan (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  11:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2017
It seems that the user User:MPS1992 (talk) has fully reverted and removed the Controversy section during the semi-protected phase of this page. The semi protection was added due to recent continuous blanking of the Controversy section. Can the change be undone and page fully locked? The same thing happened on 30 Oct as well. Zkashan (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that currently reverted text doesn't seem to pass the tests for inclusion in a biography of a living person - it lacks cites, and appears to present only one particular view of the 'scandal' in question. A better-written and properly cited entry could be included, but in my experience Wikipedia is not a news site - it would make more sense to hold off until the dust has settled such that a balanced entry covering the various perspectives on the issue can be assembled. Random name (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last question, you may place a request for full protection at WP:RFPP, but you would need to make a pretty strong argument for such a request. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversy
You removed this Controversy section by reverting edit of User:DRAGON BOOSTER last year citing WP:BLP. This particular controversy is not a gossip and has been in the news for a longer period of time, holds encyclopedic value and in no way, negative in tone and doesn't victimize or attack the subject, therefore I have reinstated it back into the bio for the sake of neutrality of the page. Perhaps the quantity of citations can be further increased to make sure the accuracy and verifiability of the material. Afterall, A balanced article report both the good and the bad about it subjects. If you still have concerns, express below. --Saqib (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , thank you for pinging me regarding this issue, and for providing the link to WP:PROUD. However, there is a misunderstanding regarding the same. WP:PROUD that you link in your message is only a WP:ESSAY, therefore it does not have the weight of Wikipedia policy or guideline, WP:PG. Also, as stated on the page itself, it is an essay about notability, and is therefore not relevant to the concerns here which are about WP:UNDUE weight as regards WP:BLP. There is another page, again only an essay, but which has some advice more relevant to this matter at hand, please have a read of WP:CRITICISM which, amongst other things, advises against "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms".


 * In considering whether material should be included in a BLP article, we must consider whether the material is a significant matter in the person's life, for example if it had an impact on their career and whether reliable sources commented on this impact. In the section in question, there are not reliable sources which make any such comments. In addition the section is not neutrally worded, giving undue weight by quoting twitter comments in full and making assertions like "was widely ridiculed" and then even also quoting at length a "popular news anchor". This is not appropriate for a BLP or indeed for any encyclopedic writing. I will therefore be removing the section again. What you should seek is reliable sources that comment on the significance of the incident to her career, a mention of such significance could then be added in the main body of the article, suitably sourced, but not in a separate section.


 * Please could you also mention the reliable source which indicates that Obaid-Chinoy is an Ismaili, a claim that you restored in this edit. I cannot find such confirmation. MPS1992 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Career and international recognition too long
The career and international recognition section has far too much detail WP:TOOMUCH. It feels more promotional than biographical and is not written like an encyclopedia article. See Elizabeth_Chai_Vasarhelyi as an example of how a filmmaker bio with career and awards section should look like. Or create a new page. 2600:1700:D71:DF5F:E172:EF8D:8E49:4843 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)