Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Ghulam Jilani Khan and Chand Bagh School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ghulam Jilani Khan, Chand Bagh School

[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Created/expanded by Moonraker (talk). Self nom at 05:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • In the article on Khan, the links in footnotes 11 and 23 don't work. Also, the Doon School article isn't new.--Carabinieri (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm. The Doon School was bolded at this edit by Merlaysamuel. I have unbolded it. The storyofpakistan.com page appears to have been deleted, so I have replaced that citation with another. The historycommons.org site seems to be down, will probably be back shortly, so I have left that note but I have added another from a second online reference. Moonraker (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but I still think there are a number of problems with these articles: maverickpakistanis.com and historycommons.org don't appear to me to be reliable sources. The following sentence "In school sports, one of Chand Bagh's most significant competitor schools is Aitchison College" is referenced to this source, which makes no such claim. The sentence "The school thus gives its boys a good grounding in humanities and natural sciences but focusses on the sciences in Grades 12 and 13" is referenced to the school's own website.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I take your point about the Aitchison College sentence and have edited it so that it says no more than the source. I have looked at whether maverickpakistanis.com and historycommons.org are reliable sources, and I agree with you about historycommons.org, which calls itself "an experiment in open-content civic journalism", so I have deleted the one citation from it. The maverickpakistanis.com site seems to me to pass muster. When it comes to the curriculum, I can't find an alternative to relying on the school's own web site, and most of our articles on schools do much the same. Do you feel that information should be deleted? Moonraker (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I have just looked at the school article and not the hook fact. IMO this has done a pretty good job of avoiding peacocking even though it uses the school web site for factual data. Some terms could be tweaked to make them more nuetral but this is a good approach and dies include some negative comments too. There are enough refs and this is not a trivial school, and certainly deserves an article. Assuming the bio article and hook check out then I think the school article is good to go. Victuallers (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Maverickpakistanis.com is a website dedicated to improving Pakistan's image abroad. There's no indication of editorial oversight or anything like that. Citing the school's website for the claim that aspects of its curriculum are good is certainly problematic.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Pakistan generally lacks the well-established sources that we are used to elsewhere. Almost all news media (and, indeed, most books) have some agenda. maverickpakistanis.com is the only source I can find for the Chief Minister's speech at the school. Like the school's own web site, it is relied on only for matters of fact, not opinion. If we take out the information from maverickpakistanis.com (we can do that if necessary for DYK) then the rest of that section makes much less sense. If we take out the information supplied by the school web site, we have nothing on the curriculum. The article would still be long enough for DYK, but would it really be improved? As Carabinieri said here, "DYK articles are expected to have reached a certain level of quality, though the line is very blurry." Moonraker (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not worried as much by the fact that maverickpakistanis has an agenda, as by the fact that, as far as I can tell, it has no established reputation for being a reliable source. Someone can have whatever agenda they like, as long as they still have a reputation for getting the facts right. I don't know this website, but to me there's no indication that it has such a reputation. Using the school's website is ok, just not for the claim that parts of its curriculum are "good". Of course, the website is going to say that.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
That's fair enough, I have taken out the word "good". Moonraker (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that was my point. The site does peacock the school. Thats not uncommon. Lots of organisations have a glossy web site. If we are looking for factual information as to whether they teach maths or not then its going to be OK as a source. If we copy that they have a "good" curriculum .... then we just need to delete the word "good". We just need to polish out the last few peacock bits. Victuallers (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The point I disagree with you on is that I don't think the articles are ready for DYK. The problem with maverickpakistanis is still there. Here are some sources cited in the articles that appear to be unreliable: chowk.com, friendsmania.net, seamonitors.org, everything.explained.at (a Wikipedia mirror).
We do not require web sites to have an "established reputation for being a reliable source", and so far you have not made a case for not relying on maverickpakistanis.com. I am happy to take out the citation to everything.explained.at, although if it is only a Wikipedia mirror site it seems odd that it can provide information missing from a new Wikipedia article. However, I am not going to go on dealing with one complaint only for you to find new ones, Carabinieri. You had better make a complete list. Moonraker (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". By those standards, those standards don't appear to be reliable to me. (However, I didn't know those websites, so if I am wrong, please correct and provide evidence for their reliability. WP:RS lists what counts as such evidence) In addition to those sources, I've listed, I also think it's questionable to use a job ad as a source. Listen, I'm not trying to pick on you. What I'm trying to do is maintain a certain standard for DYK articles and help this article improve by pointing out its faults. The reason I didn't mention those sources before is that I hadn't noticed them. I did cursory check and found the first couple I mentioned, so I didn't look any further.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
everything.explained.at is a copy of a version of this article that has since been deleted.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
That evades the issue, Carabinieri. I am not going to put any more time or effort into editing these articles to deal with your complaints until we have it quite clear that we have broken your habit of constantly raising new issues. If you have any further points, please state them now. If you do not do so within 24 hours then I am going to look on it as game-playing for you to raise any new issues after that. Moonraker (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

ALT1... that Pakistani General Ghulam Jilani Khan (pictured) founded Chand Bagh School?

I find my original hook more interesting than this. Please can the editor proposing ALT1 sign it and say why it is better? Moonraker (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In hopes of resolving this comment conflict was hoping a less controversial hook might get this into the queue. -- Esemono (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's total nonsense. The reason why I decided to review this nomination in the first place is the fact that it did look promising and because I thought this was a topic I'd like to learn more about. Tell me: What issue have I evaded? You nominated this hook and by doing so asked people to check whether or not the article is at the level of quality one generally expects of a DYK article. I looked at the nominations and found things that already meant it did not meet that standard. Therefore, I decided to raise these objections and not to read any further in order to be able to review other nominations. I found the fact that you misrepresented one of the sources you used to be enough to object. In case you haven't noticed there's actually usually quite a backlog of nominations that haven't been reviewed. The fact that reviewers have to put up with baseless accusations when they review nominations that don't meet the standards certainly doesn't encourage more people to volunteer their time on DYK. Anyway, once those issues had been partially addressed (you still haven't given me any reason to assume that maverickpakistanis.com is a reliable source) I looked at the article again to see if it made the grade now and I discovered more issues, so I also raised them here. I take exception to you accusing of acting in bad faith and merely objecting to this nomination because I don't like the subject. One of the reasons I decided to deal with it in the first place is because I do like the subject. Rather than making such accusations, please tell me how my objections are off-base. Let me spell it out for you again: Contrary to what you have claimed, WP:RS demands the following: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". As far as I can tell, the following sources do not measure up to that standard, but are used in the article: maverickpakistanis.com, chowk.com, friendsmania.net, seamonitors.org, and everything.explained.at. The job ad that is also used is also questionable, but I'd be willing to look past it. I've already listed these issues before. Instead of dealing with them or admitting that the article isn't well-sourced, you decided to attack me personally. By the way, it's not my job to make sure you abide by WP:RS in articles that you nominate for DYK. That's actually supposed to be yours. In the past, false facts have actually made it onto the main page because people decided to nominate articles based on unreliable sources and the reviewers weren't thorough.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, I won't be commenting on this nomination any more and have taken the page off my watchlist. If you, improve the article to a point where it meets the DYK requirements, great. So far, you've shown very little inclination to do that. If someone else reviews the article and decides to promote it, despite it being based in large part on bogus sources, I don't care. I'm not going to spend my spare time dealing with this kind of crap.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As should be clear from this page, Carabinieri constantly found new faults which I dealt with as they came along. In my view maverickpakistanis.com is a reliable source, and in any event it is relied on only for a factual report of a speech at the school by Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif (which I could not find another citation for) and not for opinions. If any other reviewer feels strongly on that point, I can only suggest the paragraph could be deleted, but I prefer to leave it in. I have continued to improve the articles and in my view they are both well cited from reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I wish to add that "despite it being based in large part on bogus sources" is a crazy and false assessment. Moonraker (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You've yet to explain how maverickpakistanis.com, chowk.com, friendsmania.net, seamonitors.org, and everything.explained.at are anything but bogus.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You said "I won't be commenting on this nomination any more and have taken the page off my watchlist", which plainly was incorrect. In all the circumstances I am not going to reply to anything you say, Carabinieri. Someone less intemperate will need to look to see whether the sources relied on are acceptable or not. Moonraker (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I had taken the page off my watchlist. I came across you calling me crazy while skimming the nominations page, looking for something else. I won't be commenting on the nomination itself anymore and I haven't. I do feel like I have the right to ask you to back up with evidence any dirt you fling at me. Your refusal to do so is symptomatic: don't like the review, insult the reviewer.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Poor thinking. I criticized the assessment, which was indeed crazy and false. That is not "flinging dirt". You say you haven't commented on the nomination any more, but you plainly have. In any event, I agree with PFHLai (below) that fresh eyes are needed. Moonraker (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • When you don't back claims like that up, it is flinging dirt. Could you please just explain the reliability of those sources I've listed?--Carabinieri (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Time for fresh eyes? --PFHLai (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • - I havent changed my opinion, can someone please promote or delete this hook Victuallers (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Carabinieri that some of the sources should be shown to pass WP:RS. maverickpakistanis.com, for example, doesn't seem to be the kind of work with a respectable editorial oversight and it doesn't pass WP:SPS Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I managed to find an article from The Nation that backs up both maverickpakistanis.com footnotes.
I have a problem with friendsmania.net, though. It's a bulletin board/forum, and the postor could be anyone copy-&-pasting from god-knows-where. Furthermore the posted piece is in future tense, and the footnoted sentence in the wikiarticle is in past tense. I don't think this is right. Imagine it was a post that says "the Titanic will arrive in New York in 3 days..." It was correct at the time, but can only be used as a ref for a plan or a scheduled event, not a ref for what happened. Those admission tests probably took place as planned, but we need better referencing there. --PFHLai (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment I believe the reference issue is now solved. I have stumbled upon a vast collection of good references that can be found here. I found them by searching for "Chand Bagh School" on Dawn's website. It's a highly reliable newspaper of Pakistan and hence the References can be relied upon. I am now removing all the dubious references and introducing the DAWN's. Good luck with this DYK nomination. The path is clear...

Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  15:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Some can be found here as well. It's The Tribune of Pakistan. It seems to have got decent coverage by the Pakistani press. I don't understand what the issue was...perhaps we were looking in the wrong place :) Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  15:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  • - Let's carry on now... =)

Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  16:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it a greentick just for the school? How about the general's bio? --PFHLai (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


  • Although I was the one who help up this nomination at first, I now think the articles are ready for DYK. The unreliable sources have been removed and replaced by reliable sources.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is perhaps the weakest source. I used it because from the Let Us Build Pakistan site's about link I saw that an Editorial Board was listed under the statement "In the main, the blog offers original articles as well as a selection of editorials and op-eds from the Pakistani and international press." So, despite the use of the word "blog", the page cited appears to be either an original article supervised by the site's editorial board or else a press article which has been subject to other editorial control. It therefore seemed to me possible to rely on that page for facts but not opinions. Moonraker (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
A suggestion to Moonraker: if you don't want opinions, then you may want to remove ", and took the ISI from a peripheral organization to a powerful one" from the article. "Powerful" seems POV-ish to me. Any reliable source for a list of names of the Pakistani Chief Martial Law Administrator, with dates, would be good enough for the remaining half of the sentence, and you won't need the criticalppp.com footnote in the general's bio. --PFHLai (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
A suggestion to Moonraker & Merlaysamuel: The removal of the blog/forum-ish friendsmania.net source from the school article was good, but the replacement Pkeducation.org source is still written in future tense. This is only good for referencing the fact that such admission tests were planned, but not good enough to support that the tests actually "took place in Karachi, Rahim Yar Khan, Quetta,...." Please consider a general statement instead. A private school recruiting students from and holding admission tests in nearby urban centres is not extraordinary but kind of expected, and thus I don't think a footnote is needed -- unless you want to specify when and where. --PFHLai (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
On your main point, you are of course right, PFHLai, and I have edited the sentence to read "In March 2011 such tests were announced to take place in Karachi, Rahim Yar Khan, Quetta, Muzaffarabad, Gilgit, Sukkur and Peshawar, and also in Hyderabad in India." However, on your next point, I have never before come across a selective school which holds entrance examinations in so many places, including a city in another country. It does strike me as extraordinary. Moonraker (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. --PFHLai (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, this is DYK, not GA. Please feel free to ignore my suggestions. --PFHLai (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I was about to say just the same, about this not being a GA review. I might adopt some of PFHLai's constructive comments, but I am busy and am unlikely to do very much more to these articles. Moonraker (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Images

  • Also, I'm concerned the images may be copyvios. Tiny, professional images, with no metadata... perhaps copied from the school's webpage. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Images have been removed. -- Esemono (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I am fairly relaxed about this issue, although it strikes me as premature for images to be removed from the articles just because they are small and have no metadata. A Commons user called Ambreen Mubasher uploaded them in 2011, asserting that she was the copyright holder and was releasing them into the public domain. No one has disputed that or proposed the images for deletion. They do not seem to appear on the school's web site or on any other that I have found, although there are various pages with photographs and videos of the school and one with a similar but larger picture of Jilani. Even if any of Ms Mubasher's photographs were once on a school web site, that does not mean that she is not the copyright holder, and I see nothing in her edit history which discredits her. There is rather little at the page How to detect copyright violations which supports the finger being pointed at her, other than the smallness of the images. Perhaps the answer is to take the portrait of Jilani out of the hook and to leave the question of the images to be resolved at Commons. Moonraker (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, Moonraker, you see nothing in Ambreen Mubasher's edit history which discredits him because his offending edits have been deleted last year. Texts from his deleted edits in the school's article seem strikingly similar to those at www.facebook.com/pages/Chand-Bagh-School/22732569717?sk=info and www.chandbagh.edu.pk/cbs/... (McAfee SiteAdvisor keeps warning me not to go there....) Oh, well... --PFHLai (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree keep the images out of the article until their copy right status can be determined or at least while the article is on the main page. -- Esemono (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't be expected to comment on deleted edits. When Esemono says "I agree keep the images out of the article until their copy right status can be determined", I don't quite see that anyone has suggested that. My own view is that the pointing of the finger at Ambreen Mubasher is a very weak reason for removing images which she says belong to her and which she has released into the public domain. Is Esemono's suggestion based on any particular policy? Moonraker (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No offense to Indian or Pakistani editors, but after the education program fiasco last year I've learned to be extra cautious. Same goes for Indonesian editors; if it's of low resolution, looks to be of high technical quality, and has no metadata, it quacks — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The image looks quite similar to the picture on this page. That said the whole issue is moot as Moonraker and everyone has agreed to remove the images until the copyright status has been determined. So WITHOUT the picture can this article be DYK? -- Esemono (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Part of the image linked by Esemono is certainly very similar to Ambreen Mubasher's picture of Jilani; of course, the chandbagh.pk web site could easily have incorporated the public-domain image at Commons into its collage. I am puzzled by "Moonraker and everyone has agreed to remove the images", unless that refers to removing the portrait from the hook. I stand by leaving the Mubasher images in the articles so long as they are still at Commons, but I see no point in wanting to leave the Jilani photograph in the hook: in view of this discussion, no one is going to move that image into a queue, in any event. Moonraker (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As the matter is moot here, I am pursuing it at Talk:Ghulam Jilani Khan. Moonraker (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The images are still in the school's article, but as long as problematic pics do not get on MainPage, I'm okay with this nom. I can move the hook to the prep areas if someone can put here a green/blue tick for both articles. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  10:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ghulam_Jilani_Khan_and_Chand_Bagh_School&oldid=1189649997"