Talk:Mahrang Baloch

Semi-protection

It would be advisable to protect this page from edits by unregistered accounts. Could you @Saqib do it? Crosji (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Crosji, There's no need for protection at this time. We typically don't protect pages unless there's persistent vandalism, which I don't see currently. If you notice any unconstructive edits, feel free to undo them for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, sure @Saqib. Thanks! Crosji (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Accounts keep falsely accusing her of being connected to terrorist groups, and the links they provide show no evidence or even accusations of her doing so. Jag1762010 (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism?

@Bhatti.Fed has added 18 changes to the article in such a manner that it almost looks like vandalism and defamatory. The additions are potentially libellous... Crosji (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Crosji Each and every information added is backed by source and choice of words edited into the article has been as lenient as possible with respect to the language used in source articles. By the way, you should try to analyze the rest of the article as well which is presenting just one side of the reality but it's not a surprise to know that it didn't pass before your eyes. Bhatti.Fed (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bhatti.Fed Not all available information is necessary or appropriate for inclusion in a biographical article, particularly under the guidelines for biographies of living persons (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). The purpose of the entry is not to serve as a repository of all known facts, but rather to present a balanced, encyclopaedic overview. It may be useful to consult comparable profiles for reference. If citing external articles, please ensure that sources are complete and contextually relevant. Crosji (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Crosji and who decides which information is appropriate and which is not? are you the international designated organisation or master of it?

find another profession to feed your stomach instead of creating misleading propaganda. Bhatti.Fed (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I must ask, are you @Bhatti.Fed being serious? I will refrain from any form of incivility, as this is neither a comment section on a news website nor a social media platform. It is important to maintain a standard of discourse appropriate to a collaborative and knowledge-driven space. In case you are not aware, there are clearly articulated principles that govern interaction and editorial conduct here, as referenced earlier. These include: Presuming good faith in the contributions and intentions of others, Engaging respectfully and avoiding personal attacks, and seeking constructive resolution in the event of disagreement. As for editorial standards, they are grounded in core policies, such as commitment to neutrality and balanced representation of viewpoints, prohibition against original research or unverifiable claims, and a firm requirement that all information be supported by reliable, verifiable sources. In this spirit, I suggest we proceed—thoughtfully, respectfully, and with shared purpose. Crosji (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Crosji you are propagandists. I accuse you of ill motivations and using Wikipedia for your propaganda. Bhatti.Fed (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest related to this article. My edits are intended to improve its quality and accuracy, based on reliable, verifiable sources. Crosji (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bhatti.Fed:, See your talk page. Then read WP:ONUS. If you have an issue with the removal of content, it is up to you to get consensus here on the talk page. Please be WP:CIVIL.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Crosji how do you decide what information is necessary and what's not? I'm adding her occupation under her biography article backed by source which you removed considering it as inappropriate . how could information pertaining to someone's occupation under their biography article could be inappropriate? Why did you remove the information describing her real estate properties? you removing my added information would be justified if the added information was proved to be false. but instead of proving it false, you adopted a qualitative mechanism and regarded my added information as not being "constructive" which you decided based on your own "thinking" . I once again accuse you of controlling information and doing propaganda on Wikipedia. Bhatti.Fed (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I would encourage reviewing the biographies of living persons (BLPs) on Wikipedia to better understand the guidelines regarding what kind of information is appropriate to include. I am not entirely sure I understand the basis for your comments about my intentions. The subject's occupation is, of course, relevant and very much an integral part of the article's content. I would also like to point out that repeated changes, particularly when some include incomplete or unclear technical details (for instance, "correspondent" is not a valid author attribution), can result in additional work for others. A collaborative and constructive approach to editing is always most effective. Additionally, if there is any conflict of interest related to this topic, it should be clearly disclosed, as per Wiki's guidelines. Transparency helps maintain the integrity and neutrality of the editing process. FYI:User:CNMall41, User:SheriffIsInTown, User:Ngrewal1. Crosji (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Crosji There is nothing defamatory if the content is supported by reliable sources and properly attributed where necessary. Any information may be promptly removed if it is not supported by reliable sources, regardless of whether it is considered defamatory. I have reviewed @Bhatti.Fed edits and see that they are adding reliable sources, though I have not verified the information myself. If you can confirm that the information is accurate as per the sources, then there is no reason not to allow it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown Thank you for taking the time to look into this, I truly appreciate it. I also want to acknowledge Bhatti.Fed's ongoing efforts to improve coverage of the article and the subject's organisation in the many recent edits. That said, I believe there is also room to ensure to ensure that any added content, especially when it comes to living individuals, is consistently supported by reliable news sources. In regard to the concern raised about my edits, I would like to clarify that I have not removed the subject's occupation. The information I removed pertained to real estate holdings. In the context of a biography of a BLP, such details are generally not included unless they are independently notable and supported by multiple reliable sources (at present, there appears to be only a single article making this claim). Including such content, especially when it does not relate directly to the individual's public role or relevance, can unintentionally shift the tone or place undue emphasis on tangential matters. I hope this explanation clarifies my rationale, and I'm of course happy to discuss it further if helpful. Crosji (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Crosji yes you have removed the details about the occupation of the subject in the article. The information I added about the details of subject's occupation and her education is backed by multiple credible sources yet you decided to remove it based on your qualitative criteria. Yes, the information about real estate might have been backed by one source, but did you find any evidence of such information to be false before removing it? And after deleting multiple edits and sentences having credible and multiple sources, you are trying to take cover of specific information about real estate to defend yourself of deleting ALL of the edits. Your so called and self invented qualitative criteria to remove credible information clearly indicates that you do not want to present neutral & credible information about the subject. Instead, by choosing to remove credible information based on qualitative criteria, you are clearly trying to present biased information about the subject Bhatti.Fed (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Crosji you are still defending removing credible information backed by sources on Wikipedia. I have read instructions regarding biographies of living persons, and I find nothing in contradiction to what I added into the article. You could have removed my added information only if it wasn't sourced or the source wasn't credible. Ill motivations are not always followed by conflict of interest. You made a controversial revision into the article based on your own qualitative criteria. There's information in the article which is not even sourced yet you did not bother to remove it. Instead you chose to remove credible information added by me based on your own "Qualitative" criteria. That's clear malafide on your part. Bhatti.Fed (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Crosji Yeah credible information regarding occupation of the subject is very necessary. And you have removed it from the article as well. Bhatti.Fed (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)