User talk:Bushra7070

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Bushra7070. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Bushra Hyder, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

--Bushra7070 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)--Bushra7070 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Article about you
Hi Bushra7070, and welcome to Wikipedia. I understand you've made an account to ask that Bushra Hyder be deleted as this article is about you or someone you're acting on behalf of, and you do not want to be the subject of an article. To give you a bit of background, I'm a volunteer who created this article in August 2018 after seeing significant coverage of you in publications by the International Civil Society Action Network, Inclusive Security, HuffPost and Liputan6, as part of an ongoing project we have to redress the systemic gender bias that Wikipedia has.

Wikipedia articles are generally independent from a subject's wishes, to maintain neutrality. We determine if figures are notable based on whether they have been covered in reliable secondary sources, like those I mentioned above. As such, it may not be possible for the article to be deleted.

If there are any factual mistakes in the article then the way we resolve this is by discussion—I need to understand what your specific criticisms are so that we can work out what the best solution is. If there are any specific parts of the article that you are concerned about for privacy reasons then we might be able to investigate further if they are necessary or not. However, to the best of my knowledge, all the information in the article about you is publicly available in free materials. If you are concerned about any future hypotheticals (like the possibility of personal information being added to the article) then maybe I can explain more about our Biographies of living persons policy and our processes for dealing with sensitive information.

You may wish to contact our Volunteer Response Team to speak with a volunteer who has more experience of discussions with subjects of our articles than myself. I understand that it can create anxiety if you feel that you are not in control of what is written about you, but we take many measures on Wikipedia to ensure that we do not harm the lives of the people we write about. Thank you for reading this and I hope I can help address your concerns by starting this dialogue. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Respected Sir/ Madam

Thanks for your response. The reason why I wanted to edit some of the sentences in the information about me and PAIMAN is that I work in very sensitive areas and communities and such information is life threatening for me. The actual work I do is not conveyed correctly. I have implemented Peace Education in my institution which does not talk about Jihad directly but teaches inclusivity and Pluralism, tolerance, creativity and acceptance of diversity among students belonging to different backgrounds. It is mentioned very blatantly that I am anti Jihad which rings negative connotation and may create problems for me and PAIMAN. I have been working in the field with communities badly affected by conflict for the last thirteen years but very silently as talking about such issues result in death in our country especially the area I live in. I would also like the article written by ICAN also be removed as it too conveys a negative idea of what I actually do. Furthermore I would suggest that when next time you want to add any information about a person the best thing would be to take permission. I would request that the changes i suggested or made earlier may be accepted or in case the article may be deleted as i stressed in my response that it can create life and security issues for me and my whole family.--Bushra7070 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Bushra7272 I have made changes accordingly so kindly accept them --Bushra7070 (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I now understand your perspective a little bit better, and I hope I can help you understand mine. Please do not edit the article directly, as we do not allow people with a conflict of interest to edit directly (even though I understand that in this case you are not attempting to use the article for financial or political gain).
 * We strive for factual accuracy on Wikipedia so I am happy to make changes about content which is misleading or inaccurate. I can see that you take issue with the sentence
 * The aim of the curriculum is toa prevent students from turning to jihad.
 * and we do have a source which says
 * Through Hyder's peace education, pupils are exposed to the religious and cultural teachings of other communities, promoting understanding and acceptance.
 * So I've removed this sentence and extended the previous one a bit more, so that it reads:
 * The school places a heavy emphasis on its peace curriculum, introduced in 2009, which entails education on a variety of religions and cultures designed to foster understanding and acceptance.
 * I hope you agree with me that this is more factually accurate, but if not then let me know. In the case of PAIMAN, the description at Liputan6 reads that:
 * [PAIMAN Alumni Trust Pakistan] ini mulai bergerilya memberikan penyadaran kepada masyarakat khususnya perempuan dan anak agar tidak ikut gerakan jihad berkedok agama ...
 * Now English is my only language, so please correct me if I am misinterpreting the source, but a language translation tool says that this sentence roughly means:
 * [PAIMAN Alumni Trust Pakistan] began to educate the public, especially women and children, to not join the jihad movement under the guise of religion.
 * However, looking into the matter a bit closely, I think the issue here is my ignorance of other cultures. The news media in the United Kingdom, where I live, all use the term "jihad" to mean "terrorism". This misinformation has affected my writing here. From reading our article about jihad, I think I now understand why calling an Islamic organisation "anti-jihad" is offensive. I am sorry that my prejudices have negatively affected you and I will strive to be better in the future.
 * So I have changed the description of PAIMAN to this:
 * an organisation which opposes Islamic extremism
 * I hope that this too is not offensive or inaccurate, but let me know if it is. Perhaps "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamic radicalisation" are alternatives? If you suggest an alternate wording then it needs to be based on some source's description of you—I notice you originally wrote an organisation working on conflict transformation, but I do not see any source which says this. If information does not have a source on Wikipedia then it fails our verifiability policy—how can we know that the information is true?
 * Your final request was that we remove the ICAN source, I believe this one. I will not do this. Wikipedia aims to make all publicly available knowledge free and accessible to everyone. In this case, we have a source of information which is online and free. If you take issue with it then you could contact ICAN and try to get the piece retracted or corrected. If they have falsified quotes about you then this is a serious issue and please let me know about it. But otherwise, there is nothing I can do here.
 * I hope this addresses some of your concerns and helps you understand where my information was coming from—I did not write anything about you which I did not have a strong reason to believe to be true. Wikipedia needs to be independent from its subjects, or it cannot cover topics accurately. Our articles about political topics would simply be propaganda outlets if we allowed the people discussed to have control of them. I do not know if you find Wikipedia a useful educational tool or a good source of information, but many people do, and this site could not have been built without our policies on independence. Thank you for your polite and understanding responses so far. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bilorv thank you for your support. One request can you use radicalisation instead of islamic terrorism related to PAIMAN Bushra7070 (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Or the best word would be violent extremism to be used in relation to PAIMAN as it is much better and safe for organisation--Bushra7070 (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC) It is again kindly requested to kindly change it to voilent extremism --Bushra7070 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC) You can use religious extremism as an alternative in regard to PAIMAN organisation--Bushra7070 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Bushra, I've seen this message but I'm just a volunteer doing this in my free time. I'll respond when I can but a lot of thought and time goes into these messages on my part so I don't want to respond hastily. Your messages are going through if that's what you're concerned about. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you hope that you would address the same at your earliest Bushra7070 (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Bushra, I've thought about it for quite a while and I don't see a compelling reason to change the text to "violent extremism". We are a global encyclopedia and so we try to give the broadest context wherever possible, and in this case as I understand it, it's a particular type of violent extremism which is based on (a corruption of) Islam, rather than being rooted in other religions or other secular ideas (such as might be more prominent in the west).
 * Something I perhaps haven't emphasised is that we have a very flat hierarchical structure at Wikipedia (if any hierarchy at all) and my opinion is just that—my opinion. I don't own the article and I don't have any more say over it than other editors. I will reiterate that you should not edit the article directly because you are the subject of it, however. I hope you are satisfied with my explanation above, but if you wish to get another opinion then the Teahouse is a place where lots of volunteers watch to help out new users or people with questions about Wikipedia. They will see by navigating the page histories the discussion we have had and can come to their own conclusion. Another option is the Volunteer Response Team that I mention above. In the longer term, both of those options are open to you at any time and if you have questions for me, I'll see them if you put them here but I'll also see them faster if you post on my user talk page. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)