Talk:Daniyal Mueenuddin

Untitled

the hindustan times and ians say: "Rana Dasgupta, Daniyal Mueenuddin win Commonwealth writer awards" [1] [2]; the hindu says: "British Indian writer Rana Dasgupta and Pakistan's Daniyal Mueenuddin have been shortlisted for the 2010 Commonwealth Writers' Prize to be announced in New Delhi next month." [3]

btw, is there a reason to suppress the TOC? looks better with one. Slowking4 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your right, the Commonwealth Award is in the Awards section; he has won so many awards its clutter to have it in the lead section, other than "critically acclaimed" which sums it up. NOTOC was old from when the article was shorter. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten and copy edited.

• I have cleanedup the article, and copy edited.Justice007 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• In the section biography, there was some confusing content,that has been clarified with copy edit and rewriting.Justice007 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've made a few improvements and clean up. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Your edits are not legitimate, please discuss,why you think your edits are best than others?.Justice007 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Justice007. As background, I apologize for the recent edits. I wrote most of this article myself. I worked on it for weeks, I probably have spent over 30 hours of research, revising and re-editing this article over actually a few years since when I first started. Your recent edits were good faith but I disagree. Everything in the article has been carefully selected and written to present a narrative of Mueenuddin's life, to demonstrate his history. I don't believe there is anything here that is "not needed", and everything is pretty well sourced (there may be a few things here or there). I welcome continued discussion with about it, I am certain that over the coming days and weeks we will work together to make this article not shorter, but longer and better, using the established style of telling his life chronologically. My goal is for this to be a Featured Article and I hope you will work with me to that standard. The first goal will be Good Article status. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes I agree with you on this point, I did all that with good faith, made a better layout as standards of wikipedia, I did not checked that you created the article, of cource my edits hurted you,but style of writing should be encyclopedic,not story,or an easy,the content should address only the life of the subject with reliable sources. I did not remove much content from the article but you did yourself that.Lets go to my last version of edits, and you improve and expand the article,when you need mee, I will do my best to make the article a feature article.Thanks for your positive behaviour.And be carefull WP:3RR.Justice007 (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the article is encyclopedic, it is not a "story", it is a chronological retelling of his life with appropriate writing techniques using reliable sources! How about we return my version of the article and you can make some changes there if you like. Thank you for your co-operation. Green Cardamom (talk)

You made positive contributions and I have integrated those into the article. Please do not delete large blocks of content that is well sourced. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Article

Hello, this article --especially the early years/life section seems to me to be written by the subject himself or someone close to him. In overall terms, it lacks neutrality and should be more balanced and I would definitely suggest that a 3rd party neutral and experienced editor here shoudl make a proper check and then do the needful, thanks. I hope you will note take this criticism wrongly. 39.54.68.48 (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz Khan Pakistan

I wrote it almost entirely myself using sources cited in the article. I write on world literature topics on Wikipedia, as you can see on my User page. I have no connection to the author in any way, other than having read his collection of short stories. Everything in the article is extremely well sourced from secondary independent sources per WP:RS and WP:V, it's all public information available on the web. --Green Cardamom (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a fact not cited, regarding the "unsanitary hospital", it was me who tagged it for cite needed in July 2012(*). The text was added April 2010 by User:94.170.70.159 as seen here. I recall at the time it looked like someone with a connection to the author, but I tracked down sources for most everything and was able to keep most of it, except for the part about the unsanitary hospital, thus the cite needed tag. Since everything else checked out, I kept it in the article with the hope a source would show up eventually. If you would like to go through the edits of 94.170.70.159 more closely we can do that.

(*)In my edit comment I wrote that it was "me who wrote it" but that is wrong, a lapse of memory apparently over the course of two years, I thought I had found it in a source years earlier and couldn't remember the source. In fact it was added by 94.170.70.159 Green Cardamom (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I remember what happened now, earlier in 2012 I was trying to source every sentence/fact and forgot that back in 2010 there was text added by 94.170.70.159, I thought I had written it years earlier taken from the other sources cited in the article. So recently when adding citations for the things in his early life that I couldn't find in sources my assumption was I had taken it from the audio interview, thus the cites to the audio source. But now that I check the audio it doesn't support everything. So I will go back and remove/change stuff so that it's better supported by the sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. I still feel that 'you' (whoever you may be dear sir/madam) have a personal and close connection to the subject. I am sorry but this explanation about being a well sourced or 'referenced' article just doesnt ring true to me, as much that is written/said in the 'early years' or life section especially, seems to be derived and narrated with a very intimate or even personal touch. I would request a review by a 3rd party please 39.54.119.43 (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz Khan

Despite User:Green Cardamom 's very fine credentials as a regular editor and article contributor on Wikipedia (something I cannot claim Im only a humble fan and user of this site) I am somehow not convinced by the explanations above. I feel that some of the information given herein is either (a) too intimate such as only someone v close to the subject would know, or could possibly give and/or (b) there seems to be a certain element of puffery, or bias and excessive promotion of the subject WHICH I DO NOT FIND IN ANY OF THIS EDITOR'S OTHER ARTICLES HERE. It is requested once again that Wikipedia please make a proper objective check, thanks. 39.54.119.43 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz Khan

I am thus, please requesting a peer review thanks 39.54.119.43 (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz

Removal of my template

Please dont remove the template I have put here until dispute resolution and peer review, I am adding in good faith and believe that general editorial feedback is required and would be valuable here thanks 39.54.119.43 (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz Khan

I have also requested editor/user User:Seraphimblade 's help and would request proper review thanks, i am not a vandal and am seriously concerned about this article's standard 39.54.119.43 (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz Khan

Col Mumtaz Khan, you may be a new user interested in improving things but that doesn't excuse you from following the rules of Assumption of Good Faith. If you're going to accuse me of Conflict of Interest (WP:COI) than you need to support it with evidence. If you think the article is biased than you need to list specific words and sentences. I am happy to work with you on content issues, but that is impossible in an atmosphere of bad faith. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please indent you comments using the : after the first comment and aditional :: for each reply adding one more for every subsquent comment...or the discussion will be difficult to understand and follow. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Example:

Hello, this is a discussion. Signed by editor

:Hello, this is the first reply. Signed by editor

::Hello, this is the second reply. Signed by editor

:::Hello, this is the third reply. Signed by editor

The colons will not appear but simply push each subsequent reply further to the right. When the discussion gets too long...start over without a colon and begin again.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hello Mumtaz Khan, the article has been reviewed and rewritten by me, see above section "Rewritten and copy edited". I do not see any kind of problem that falls under WP:COI. If you think there is any promotional text in the article, please indicate which one?, that can be discussed and we can reach WP:consensus.Justice007 (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I kind of see where Mumtaz Khan is coming from - but I don't think it's a COI issue. The text in that section, with respect, reads more like a publisher's blurb on one of its authors than an encyclopedic article. (E.g. "The family spent long holidays on his father's family farm in South Punjab, and Mueenuddin remembers this as a magical time which included hunting and riding.[4] Mueenuddin and his brother Tamur[10] often visited the US in the summers.[4]") I think it's just the style of writing rather than the content itself. Having said that, a lot of the more flowery passages seems to use the source cited at footnote 4. I clicked through to it but couldn't find any text of the interview. I may well have missed something so maybe it is there. One of the subpages goes through to a very brief biographical paragraph (which didn't contain the cited information) but it did conclude with a link saying for more information see the Wikipedia article, that set WP mirror alarm bells off. DeCausa (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

One further thought: the "blurby" and slightly flowery language style of that section may be as a result of following the source too closely (although, as I said above, I can't find it so I can't check). In which case there may be a copyvio issue rather than a COI issue. DeCausa (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I had edited and rewritten as this, but creator of the article objected that, I did not want to go widely discussion so I left on his choice of writing style.Justice007 (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is much more encyclopedic in style. I would support reverting to that. DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Source [4] is an audio interview - there is a link to play the audio on the page, I think the info is within the first 5 minutes or so of the audio. In the audio he calls his youth as being a "magical" time, thus the text reflects the source. If the word "magical" is causing tone problems it can be put in quotes. I removed the "long holidays" as it's not in the source, it was added by the anon back in 2010 (which is the source of all these problems). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to above

Dear User:Justice007, User:Green Cardamom and User:DeCausa, thanks for your comments. I see that Green cardamom wishes me to assume 'Good faith' and I have already said/written that I have assume such; yet, inspite of assuming this, I feel there is a problem-- maybe DeCausa is right, it could be the language or the tone of the language as pointed out, Im afraid Im not an expert at this you see, nut i do have certain literary/critical instincts too, from my own quite substantial reading over some 50 years or more and i dont see what is wrong with once and for all having a proper thorough check/public/general review and feedback process? The thing is, i am not really an expert nor am i a registered editor--Im not sure if i want to be yet, but I am quite 'Bona Fide' too, in my efforts and desire and wish ultimately to benefit this article. Perhaps if you could all kindly cooperate with me in this request? Let us for once open up this article to the general editor's review/peers review--lets get maximum feedback and if the majority agrees that the article is ok, legit, then its fine with me too. Might I ask you all again please? Thanks39.54.87.215 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz Khan

I am sorry that User:Green Cardamom seems to have too soon assumed 'bad faith' on my part-- what have I said or done that reflects that? And even if I have by any mischance said/written something which is offensive to Green Cardamom (GC) then I woudl take it back and ask/request that you deem it to be my inexperience here. Thanks 39.54.87.215 (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Col Mumtaz Khan

Mumtaz, is there a particular fact or section that you find problematic? I find the tone of the article to be quite sterile. What's the problem here? I did a quick look through some of the references and nothing looked out of place. I don't think that an editor's connection to the subject should even be questioned if there isn't a problem with the content. I don't see excessive "puffery" as you say. Is the suggestion to remove cited statements because you find them overly flattering? Do you have sources to the contrary? —Zujine|talk 06:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

to the col (a sort of known IP?) - i, too, have reviewed and all seems fine. are there items you wish to add (like something about a controversy or criticism?), items you wish to remove (if so, give a specific example, and let's discuss it one by one), etc. Soosim (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Comments and discussion above

Dear User:Zujine, I think that the User:Mumtaz Khan isnt quite familiar with Wikipedia editing ways and means and protocols etc. As a comparatively new/ish editor myself, I know how confusing that can be and one cannot express one's self properly, a bit intimidating too, in fact, when more experienced editors, address you from a 'lofty' and condescending position instead of patiently and kindly helping out and guiding. However-- From all the preceding discussion/s i have come to the conclusion/s that 1. The user objects (by his lights/understanding) to some of the statements wording which he probably finds flattering or somewhat too 'flowery' in terms of praise of the subject. I have read the article again, now, and I think this really isnt the case, mostly its a well-considered and well-referenced article and we can try to explain this to the user Mumtaz Khan. 2. He seems as I understand it, to also be somewhat in doubt of suspicious of the actual ID of the writer/creator! But we cant do much about that, I have already tried to explain to the user that on Wikipedia good faith is assumed and we all have equal rights of privacy etc. If I read it correctly, these are the main concerns in this user's mind and although i do 'get' or understand where's he's 'coming from' and that he, too, is acting in good faith and with quite obvious sincerity, he doesnt seem to appreciate as yet the Wikipedia workings, as already noted before. I have also re-read this article a number of times, now, and I do think there could be some further minor edits/amendments to help improve it and shall try to effect these in due course. I hope this is helpful. It's too long and verbose, sorry. AsadUK200 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

I disagree that the article is 'too long and verbose'. It is a biography article. Mueenuddin has had a complicated life moving between two countries and cultures multiple times. Have you read the sources this article is based on? This article could be much longer. I'm curious why you think discussion of his father is a source of the "furor" over this article. I see you are from Pakistan, as is User:Mumtaz Khan, maybe you can provide some insight on Pakistani politics I am not aware of. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Also please maintain the sentence period before the citation number not after, which is standard on Wikipedia, thank you. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits

Hi, I have made some preliminary edits to the early life section (which seems to have caused some furor) and shall go on making others later on. I have basically removed a line about Daniyal Mueenuddin's civil servant father's early Indian career and his time as an official in the Establishment division of Pakistan's government--which i found to be a tad irrelevant to the main thread of the article/writing at this point. I think it goes along smoothly now and links up well with the next line/sentence. I hope this is ok. Regards, cheers AsadUK200 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

I disagree with this edit. It important to establish that Mueenuddin came from an important political family. "civil servant" could be anything. Mueenuddin's father was quite high up and powerful in the government. This is a biography article, it's not a tangent to discuss the background of the parent, in particular when that parent held such an important position. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My dear User:Green Cardamom I shant insist upon this matter as it seems you feel strongly about any change/s made by anyone else to this article. However, I cannot but help feel that (a) Daniyal's father's being a Secretary of the Establishment division and/or (b) a 'negotiator' on the Indus treaty still seems quite irrelevant to the article, by and large, if you could please also try to see it from an objective perspective-- cant his father's 'seniority' and 'importance' be established by just letting people know he was a 'senior and important civil servant' please? By the way I personally knew G Mueenuddin and met him a number of times in Karachi and Multan way back in the 1960s, when I was still a young college lecturer, and I recollect well that he was a sober and humble man, Im sure he'd not like to have such petty details paraded before folk! But who am I to cavil? God bless you. AsadUK200 (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

There have a number of changes to the article as a result of the conversation begun by Khan, I'm not adverse to changes if they make sense (I respond best when specific changes have a supporting rationale). To answer your points, the (b) 'negotiator' on the Indus treaty is relevant because it explains how his father ended up in the USA, which is where he met his future wife and Daniyal's mother. The (a) details of his fathers career. If you read it closely, the reason it says he worked for the Indian Civil Service is to place into context his reason for being in the USA. But since he is Pakistani, it wouldn't make sense to leave it at that since the Indian Civil Service is not Pakistan (I for one was confused by this when first writing the article); so we have to explain his fathers relation with Pakistan, also, thus the additional details of his Pakistan career. Here is how that sentence reads:

His father was a member of the Indian Civil Service (ICS), and after the Partition of India he became Secretary of Pakistan's Establishment Division, which administered the civil service (later he was the country's Chief Election Commissioner).

I would not be adverse to making the following change:

His father was a member of the Indian Civil Service (ICS), and after the Partition of India he became a senior official in the Pakistani government.

This would contain a footnote with the details about the Establishment Division and the Chief Election Commissioner to support the statement "senior official". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)