This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Raymond Allen Davis incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Raymond Allen Davis incident. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Raymond Allen Davis incident at the Reference desk. |
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Raymond Allen Davis incident was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 March 2011. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The introduction / first para says' "although the US protested... he was arraigned by Pakistan" when it could / should have been "although the law took its course, the US continued to protest".. what ethnocentricism!!
The are has been an attempt by the Pakistani government to swap Dr Aafia siddiqui for Davis. Muslims, and the Pakistani people especially have long demanded the release of this woman. Even in captivity she was treated like an animal by the Americans, subjugated to strip searches and the like; A woman! Anyways, it is a shame that this swap attempt has not been mentioned in the article (at least not clearly; the word Aafia is no where in the article). For the sources, here is one: " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41594034/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/pakistan-hints-prisoner-swap-us-official/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 ( talk) 01:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Another contributor excised a passage, that was referenced to al Jazeera, claiming al Jazeera was not a reliable enough source.
First, it is essential if we are all to cooperate to prevent triggering edit warring to not rely on edit summaries to explain controversial or complicated edits. The initial impulse when you are annoyed by a controversial edit, which another contributor has explained with an brief unsatisfactory edit summary, is to reply in your own edit summary, when you revert their edit. Result -- instant edit war. So don't do this.
Second, third parties who are trying to go back and figure out how the an article evolved should be able to look to the talk page for the explanation of controversies -- not the edit summaries.
Third, explanations in edit summaries generally don't make any sense, without stepping through the edits in question. This really sucks! So don't do it.
If your edit is complicated your edit summary should say something like: "revert -- see talk" or "complicated -- see talk"
As to "Al Jazeera" not being a reliable source -- says who? Al Jazeera's English service has an excellent reputation for fairness and independence. The excised passage struck didn't strike me as a controversial passage that would justify the hand-wave to BLP in the edit summary. Geo Swan ( talk) 09:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The article claims that the practice of Diyya is common in Pakistan. Yet, the two citations for this claim, number [2] and [89] do not substantiate this and only refer to the Raymond Allen Davis incident. Either the statement should be updated to remove the term "common" or better citations should be used.
Quoted below from Release section: "He was released under a principle of Sharia (Islamic law) that allows murder charges to be dismissed if diyya is paid to the deceased's families (if and only if, they agreed without any pressure), an arrangement which is legal and common in Pakistan.[2][89]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.2.36 ( talk) 06:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Raymond Allen Davis incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Raymond Allen Davis incident. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Raymond Allen Davis incident at the Reference desk. |
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Raymond Allen Davis incident was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 March 2011. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The introduction / first para says' "although the US protested... he was arraigned by Pakistan" when it could / should have been "although the law took its course, the US continued to protest".. what ethnocentricism!!
The are has been an attempt by the Pakistani government to swap Dr Aafia siddiqui for Davis. Muslims, and the Pakistani people especially have long demanded the release of this woman. Even in captivity she was treated like an animal by the Americans, subjugated to strip searches and the like; A woman! Anyways, it is a shame that this swap attempt has not been mentioned in the article (at least not clearly; the word Aafia is no where in the article). For the sources, here is one: " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41594034/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/pakistan-hints-prisoner-swap-us-official/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 ( talk) 01:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Another contributor excised a passage, that was referenced to al Jazeera, claiming al Jazeera was not a reliable enough source.
First, it is essential if we are all to cooperate to prevent triggering edit warring to not rely on edit summaries to explain controversial or complicated edits. The initial impulse when you are annoyed by a controversial edit, which another contributor has explained with an brief unsatisfactory edit summary, is to reply in your own edit summary, when you revert their edit. Result -- instant edit war. So don't do this.
Second, third parties who are trying to go back and figure out how the an article evolved should be able to look to the talk page for the explanation of controversies -- not the edit summaries.
Third, explanations in edit summaries generally don't make any sense, without stepping through the edits in question. This really sucks! So don't do it.
If your edit is complicated your edit summary should say something like: "revert -- see talk" or "complicated -- see talk"
As to "Al Jazeera" not being a reliable source -- says who? Al Jazeera's English service has an excellent reputation for fairness and independence. The excised passage struck didn't strike me as a controversial passage that would justify the hand-wave to BLP in the edit summary. Geo Swan ( talk) 09:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The article claims that the practice of Diyya is common in Pakistan. Yet, the two citations for this claim, number [2] and [89] do not substantiate this and only refer to the Raymond Allen Davis incident. Either the statement should be updated to remove the term "common" or better citations should be used.
Quoted below from Release section: "He was released under a principle of Sharia (Islamic law) that allows murder charges to be dismissed if diyya is paid to the deceased's families (if and only if, they agreed without any pressure), an arrangement which is legal and common in Pakistan.[2][89]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.2.36 ( talk) 06:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)