Talk:Syeda Ghulam Fatima

Why was there a detailed account of one journalist's issue with the person in question?
Half of Fatima's page was dedicated to an article written by a journalist who did not support the human rights work Fatima was doing. This is biased information that doesn't belong in a Wiki article.

67.82.172.191 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)milkywayuser


 * The central reason she merits an entry on Wikipedia is her work on bonded labor. The journalist (who presented pictures and other various documents) calls that work into question: it may be a scam. This information clearly belongs on the page.
 * That the journalist may not support her work is a straw man. Just because the journalist does not support the work does not make the pictures & documentation cease to exist. Outright asserting that the journalist is biased (and therefore the reporting invalid) is unjustified. Where are the articles that show the output of her work? Where are the pictures of the structures that have been built, the cases that have been resolved? When that information and reporting appears, then that information should be ADDED to the page, showing that the allegations were debunked.
 * That the journalist may not support her work is a straw man. Just because the journalist does not support the work does not make the pictures & documentation cease to exist. Outright asserting that the journalist is biased (and therefore the reporting invalid) is unjustified. Where are the articles that show the output of her work? Where are the pictures of the structures that have been built, the cases that have been resolved? When that information and reporting appears, then that information should be ADDED to the page, showing that the allegations were debunked.

Torsionalmetric (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

67.82.172.191 (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)milkywayuser
 * No pictures or documentation were included in the citations. Only an article making claims with no evidence to back them up.