Talk:Mir Ershad Ali
Add topic| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Reference [7] not related to Rear Admiral Mir Ershad Ali
[edit]Hi all, this is regarding the edit made by User:Activeping112. The removed portion included statements about Rear Admiral Ali being removed by the Yunus administration, but reference [7] doesn't support this claim — it relates to a different topic/person. We edited the article to reflect verifiable facts only. If anyone has a valid source, we’re happy to include it. Otherwise, that part violates WP:V and WP:BLP. Thoughts? Syri0123 (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Follow-up on previous discussion:
The edit made on 25 June 2025 (removing politically sensitive and unsourced claims) was reverted again on 12 July by User:Aaaas216& without engaging in this Talk page or providing a valid reason. The previous reference [7] is still unrelated to Rear Admiral Ali and the claims remain unsupported.
Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP, please either provide a proper source for the removed content or allow the accurate version to remain.
If no justification is made, I’ll request a third opinion or escalate to dispute resolution. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syri0123 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Update (15 July):
Despite the earlier version being discussed and left stable for 17 days, user Aaaas216& has again reverted to the disputed version without addressing Talk or providing any source for the political claims re-added. Reference [7] remains unrelated.
Requesting either: - Reliable sources for the restored material, or - Agreement to keep the accurate, verifiable version.
Otherwise, we will escalate for third opinion or admin review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syri0123 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've reverted it back to the version that does not contain the comments about removal. I was unable to validate the source (both the page and its parent site are down) either directly or through the Internet Archive. Perhaps that is just me, can anyone else get there? Until we validate the source we shouldn't include these claims per WP:BLP Squatch347 (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)