Jump to content

Talk:Masrat Zahra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should lead mention nationality or ethnicity.

[edit]

@TheAafi: has been reverting my edits on changing Kashmiri to indian, so I'm requesting for a discussion to conclude consensus and change accordingly without editwars. Kashmir is not a country, it's a UT, and an ethnicity until and unless the article is primarily notable by ethnicity we can't use Kashmiri, rather Indian or Pakistani has to be used. I know Aafi as a good editor on wiki but AGF, i think he is trying to push in pro kashmiri sentiments to this article and i somehow feel as if he's connected to the subject. Jammumylove (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Kashmir thing is not with just with one article, and if it is changed undiscussed, it'd be a long load. Kashmiri was there ever since I wrote this article. This brand new editor is violating the revert policy and accusing me of doing so. I advised them to let it be as it is, and initiate RfC if they feel there should not be "Kashmiri" at all. I believe the sources refer her as a Kashmiri photojournalist, and not on her "nationality". I know relevant Wikipedia policies, and that's why I used Kashmiri there. There is no pro-Kashmiri sentiment in it. If you wanted to change Kashmiri to Indian, the first correct place would've been the talk page, and that's why I reverted your edit. Nonetheless, you reverted me again and advised me to open RfC which was however your work, and I had clear-cut mentioned it in the edit summary. Also, the 3RR is not applicable to my two reverts, but it'd definitely be applicable if you force the change again, without gaining a consensus here.─ The Aafī (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A single edit or a single minor difference does not indicate that I've a COI with the article. The article is written in a neutral tone and follows Wikipedia guidelines. Pinging Toddy1 who sorted and edited a major part of this article. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article history shows that on 24-25 February 2021, TheAafi made two reverts, but this edit accused TheAafi of breaking the 3RR rule (i.e. making 4 or more reverts in 24 hours or thereabouts). It does not make sense. Am I missing something?
Regarding "the lead should contain nationality until the subject is notable due to the ethnicity", you should read Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#A_proposal_for_Kashmir-related_pages_on_this_notable_day_for_India_and_Pakistan and Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#Uniform_format_for_infobox_of_Kashmir-related_first-order_division_articles. Saying that Zahra is Kashmiri is consistent with that.
Regarding conflicts of interest - I do not see a justification for a COI tag on the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Toddy1:,

  • First:-I thought that 3rr is being violated, didn't notice Aafi didnt make more then 3 edits my bad.
  • Second:- Regarding kashmiri in lead. the subject is a photojournalist who belongs to Indian kashmir so her nationality is Indian and not Kashmiri. The subject is notable because of arrests against her, Also could be WP:BLP1E, she isn't notable due to her being 'Kashmiri'. In this case we have to write as Masrat Zahra is an Indian Freelance photojournalist and not Masrat zahra is an Kashmiri photojournalist because this makes no sense and depicts wrong nationality. She's even mentioned in the Indian Journalists category, and if this is to be followed then every one should be referred by their ethinicity only for eg:- Farhat_Basir_Khan is to be called as an gorakhpuri photojournalist and not an indian photojournalist. Why is it that only BLP's related to kashmir get Kashmiri in the lead and not Indian? Dar Yasin is referred to as an Indian Photojournalist why should Masrat Zahra be referred as Kashmiri. Give me an relevant doc that validates this i will not further change it but since Kashmiri in the lead is misleading it should and has to be corrected. I hope this isn't more of pushing personal Pro-Kashmiri POV into it, because that doesn't deserve a place on wikipedia.
  • Third:- Regarding COI:- My reason for this is:- When almost all other Kashmir related article's have Indian in the Lead, Why is TheAafi trying to put more efforts in this? Doesn't make any sense
  • Fourth:- Why did you remove the Nationality part from the Infobox? Please clarify.

I'll be Posting this into WP:Jammu and kashmir to get more clearer consensus from people related to Jammu and Kashmir. Jammumylove (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the things that made no sense:
  1. 01:59, 25 February 2021 Jammumylove changed "Kashmiri photojournalist" to "Indian photojournalist" in the lead paragraph.
  2. 07:59, 25 February 2021 Jammumylove changed "Kashmiri photojournalist" to "Indian photojournalist" in the lead paragraph.
  3. 11:42, 25 February 2021 Jammumylove changed "birth_place = Srinagar" to "birth_place = Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India" in the infobox and added a {{COI}} tag.
The 11:42 edit had an edit summary that was hard to relate to your edit, especially as you mistakenly accused TheAafi of making 4 reverts when he/she had only made 2.
Second: Regarding the sources cited in the article, the first ten refer to her as follows:
  • [2] "Masrat Zahra, a young Kashmiri photojournalist"
  • [3] "Masrat Zahra, the 26-year-old photojournalist from Kashmir"
  • [5]"Kashmiri Photojournalist Masrat Zahra"
  • [6] "Zahra, who was born in the city of Srinagar,"
  • [7] "Masrat Zahra, a freelance photojournalist from Kashmir"
  • [8] "Kashmiri photojournalist Masrat Zahra"
  • [10] "Masrat Zahra, 24, is a budding photojournalist from Hawal, Srinagar."
  • [11] "Zahra, who was born in the city of Srinagar"
  • [12] "Masrat Zahra, a 26-year-old photojournalist from the region’s main city of Srinagar"
  • [13] "A woman photojournalist in the restive Kashmir Valley"
Conclusion: English-languages sources generally refer to her as either Kashmiri/"from Kashmir" or "from/born in Srinagar".-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth Though Template:Infobox person has a nationality field, it does not seem to have been present in the infobox for this article - I cannot find it in old versions in the article history.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Fourth If the nationality isn't present in the past revisions, does that mean we can't add it to improve ? And let's wait for other's to comment as well i have no issues if the consensus is in favour of Kashmiri as per you stated the references call her Kashmiri but as per WP:BLP the ethinicity should be in lead only if she is notable because of it, until then maybe you can add the nationality to the Infobox.Jammumylove (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is that Wikipedia should try to avoid "the thrusting and parrying of national POVs" on Kashmir-related pages. It would be provocative to add the nationality field to the infobox.
The best thing to do is to take things on a case-by-case basis. The article on Safoora Zargar says that she is Indian in the lead and the nationality field in the infobox, which is generally accepted. The article on Masrat Zahra does not, and two neutral-POV editors have objected on the grounds that English-language sources tend to describe her as either Kashmiri or from Srinagar.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1:- Why would it be provocative to add her nationality to the infobox? She is an indian citizen, works for indian organisations, lives in india and even the nationality isn't something that would anger someone(apart from those who seem to portray her as Pro-Kashmiri, Pushing their POV).
2:- i do agree, but i'd prefer waiting for other people to give their comments on this to derive an consensus.Asking with good faith, Are you from kashmir? you seem to be heavily interested in kashmiri article's. Jammumylove (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You referred to WP:BLP1E, which is about "subjects notable only for one event", and has no bearing on whether she is described as Indian or Kashmiri.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As said let’s wait for other people to give their comments on whether she should be described as “indian” or “kashmiri”. There’s an another editor below who has given a logical reason to use “Indian” but let’s still wait for more users to give their opinions. And as far as WP:BLP1E is mentioned, i was just letting you know that this subject seems to be notable for one event only, and should be nominated for deletion as well. Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 09:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "Indian" in lead sections. I came here because I saw this listed as an RfC in WikiProject J&K, and because TheAafi and I had agreed to do an RfC on exactly this subject. Is this an RfC? It doesn't look like one. An RfC should be organised separately from discussions of editors' conduct, and in response to a clear and specific question. I've interpreted that question to be "Should BLPs of Kashmiri people from J&K reflect the subjects as "Kashmiri" rather than "Indian"?
I support reflecting "Indian" in the lead section. This is the basic position on Wikipedia – nationality, not ethnicity. If we switch to "Kashmiri", there needs to be a clear, principled reason for doing that we can apply elsewhere. I object to "Kashmiri" for two reasons.
First, "Kashmiri" is not a more neutral option than "Indian" or "Pakistani". One of the forces in the territorial dispute is independence/secession from India, and using "Kashmiri" privileges that position.
Second, I think there is a more "neutral" approach. The problems we face mirror the problems faced by countries responding to territorial disputes. Whatever the diplomatic position of a country (which in our case, is our opinion as to what the rightful status of Kashmir is), when it comes to an territorial dispute (whether the actors are domestic or international), international law requires foreign governments to accord legal recognition (distinct from diplomatic recognition) to the body which exercises effective control over the territory. This is based on the international legal principle of non-intervention, long established and reinforced in Nicaragua v US. I think that is a sensible approach, which comes as close to being neutral as is possible. The Kashmir government exercises control of Kashmir subordinate to the central Union government in New Delhi. The same is true for Azad Kashmir and the government in Islamabad. Accordingly, Kashmiris living in Azad Kashmir should be reflected as Pakistani (though this is outside the scope of this RfC), and Kashmiris living in J&K should be reflected as Indian. If effective control of either regions changes, unlikely as that is, we can always amend the articles to reflect that. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC) CE'd comment at 06:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
@Kohlrabi Pickle:, Before I could exactly open a procedural RfC, this brand new editor (whom I guess has somehow knowledge of Wikipedia, and perhaps may be someone else in this disguise) did it, accusing me of breaking 3RR. Anyways, this is what it is, an RfC discussing the similar issue, but placed at a wrong place, Talk:Masrat Zahra, which is no way a venue to discuss an issue that disturbs a number of articles. I personally feel fine with what Toddy1 indicated above i.e. the consistency with this article is that Zahra be referred as a Kashmiri photojournalist, as the neutral sources say her so, and according to me, this does not favor any position as you claimed above. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This makes her look “pro-kashmiri” and maybe “popular among kashmiri’s”, I’ve already said it was a mistake to accuse you, I thought the last edit was your 3rd why to even drag it again and again? And if this isn’t the correct venue i am wondering why don’t you open a RfC at a correct venue? You should assume good faith as well. Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 09:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove, Every person has limitations of time, so have I. I've been constantly travelling since more than a week, and I hardly get time to use laptop. It is just yesterday that I got some relief. Referring Zahra as Kashmiri, does no way indicate that she is Pro-Kashmir (I mean anti-India, which you mean to say), it only means that she comes from this area. That's it. I don't think it describes her political inclination or so, since she is a photojournalist, and not any Kashmir-issue related political activist. Anyways. I've answered the part why don’t you open a RfC at a correct venue?. That being said, the RfC is not here, but it is just a discussion specific to Masrat Zahra. Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheAafi, Toddy1 In your opinion, what is the justification for displacing the usual rule (which is to reflect nationality rather than ethnicity) when it comes to articles on Kashmiris? It seems to me that since that is the basic position on BLPs across Wikipedia, an editor supporting the alternative has the burden of explaining why an exception is justified. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CONTEXTBIO / MOS:ETHNICITY say "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." What it means by "ethnicity" is race - they do not want loads of articles saying "John Smith is a black rapist from..." because that kind of thing can cause racial hatred. Inciting racial hatred is illegal in (for example) England. It is not relevant to whether the article says in the lead that someone is from Kashmir.
MOS:OPENPARABIO says:
MoS guidelines for opening paragraphs should generally be followed, and the opening paragraph of a biographical article should... provide context. The opening paragraph should usually state:
3. Context (location or nationality);
There really is no policy objection to saying that Masrat Zahra is from Kashmir in the lead/info box instead of saying that she is Indian.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Toddy1, where is that explanation for MOS:ETHNICITY from? It is news to me, and in fact, directly contradicted by this essay, Wikipedia:Race and ethnicity, which I found linked under the heading in MOS:ETHNICITY. The essay says in relation to ethnicity that: The term is generally confused with the notion of race, which is likewise unhelpful, and explicitly says that calling "black" a single ethnicity or race is "imprecise". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kohlrabi Pickle:, @Toddy1: And if “Kashmiri” is used in the lead and there’s no objection to it then we might have to change all the Kashmir-related BLP articles since majority of them have sources that call them “Kashmiri”. Like “abc is a Kashmiri Journalist, abc is a Kashmiri Social activist, abc is a Kashmiri photographer, abc is a Kashmiri Entrepreneur” the reason to this for the media is to gain TRP by using “Kashmir as headline”. They usually refer all other people as Indians but when it comes to Kashmir related news they specifically use “Kashmiri” just so that people would read it, there’s no other motive for them to use ethnicity rather than nationality. Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 11:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are an account created on 25 February 2021 and you want to change all articles on Kashmiri people to say Indian. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. This is mentioned there, Reliable and Neutral way would be calling her by her Nationality, it would be by following the usual rule on wikipedia of using the nationality, and how does my time on wikipedia count. I have been earlier editing via IP and now registered properly and i haven't edited them, i am just posing my opinion that if we follow this for one article we might have to do the same for other's, why is it that you're taking strong side for this article? looks unusual. Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 12:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the phrasing to "in Indian-administered Kashmir" ("Kashmiri" is problematic usage.) Please close this discussion. It is wasting time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I'd like an answer to the RfC. It's a question that I've had difficulty with on other articles, and I want to know what our position is. I'd like to know why we don't simply list people from J&K as Indians, and people from AJK as Pakistanis. The question of what we call the regions (Kashmir, J&K, IAK, PAK, etc.) is a different one. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know when Indian will hold elections in Kashmir. I would also like to know why the Kashmir parliamentarians were locked up in their houses while the future of their state was debated in the parliament. Are you out of your mind? Stop badgering people. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3:Are you out of your mind? Stop badgering people. This isn't a way to talk to someone. Read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Moreover we're not discussing politics here, we're discussing the usual rules of Wikipedia while writing an BLP which is mentioning the Nationality not the Ethinicity, you can just write down your comment and what you think. This is a serious issue and needs to be resolved and applied, Not Badgering. Please don't push your emotions into this by mentioning I would also like to know why the Kashmir parliamentarians were locked up in their houses while the future of their state was debated in the parliament.. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 14:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that a good compromise here would be to include both the ethnicity and nationality of Masrat Zahra; in this way, both parties would be satisfied. The first sentence of the article could thus read: "Masrat Zahra (born 8 December 1993) is a freelance Kashmiri Indian photojournalist." Similarly, articles for Kashmiris born in Pakistan would use "Kashmiri Pakistani" in their ledes. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 12:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam, what do you think of "Masrat Zahra (born 8 December 1993) is an Indian freelance photojournalist from Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir (or, per Fowler, Indian-administered Kashmir)." I could get behind that. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Kohlrabi Pickle, I am fine with that too; I personally think this is a small issue so if consensus favours that, it can be instated in the article. I personally use the "ethnicity nationality" convention I described for any article that I edit; for example, for the article about Daler Mehndi, I would write "Daler Singh (born 18 August 1967), better known as Daler Mehndi, is a Punjabi Indian singer, songwriter, author and record producer." For Abrar-ul-Haq, I would use "Abrar-ul-Haq (Punjabi: ابرار الحق) is a Punjabi Pakistani politician, philanthropist and singer-songwriter." South Asia is a diverse place with many unique ethnicities so I personally like acknowledging them, though there is no hard and fast rule for this. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 14:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your view, Anupam. I'm partial to the version I suggested, because I think it's more universal; e.g. "Najib Razak is a Malaysian politician from Pahang", or "Bill Gates is an American businessman from Washington state". But I see the merit in your view. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome User:Kohlrabi Pickle. I'm fine with your suggestion too as to me, this is a minor issue. I appreciate you seeking my input! Thanks, AnupamTalk 15:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Anupam's suggestion or Indian photojournalist from Kashmir. Has she explicitly stated anywhere that she does not self-identify as an Indian? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The more relevant question is whether she has self-identified as an Indian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To your question, I think the more sensible test is to ask whether there is encyclopedic value to whether she identifies as Indian or not. Nationality does not depend on identity - Burhan Wani and Yasin Malik are (/were) both, for example, Indian, even though neither identifies (/identified) with the country. There is a secondary question, assuming she does not identify as Indian, of where that information should go, whether in the first line, elsewhere in the lead section, or the body. (That is also, I think, a question that should be determined by the encyclopedic value of that information.) In any event, I still am not sure what the objection is to calling her Indian, other than righteous anger towards India, which is political opinion. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no encyclopedic value. We put countries and nationalities in the lead because the readers may not know where the places are. But everybody knows more about Kashmir than half the countries that exist in the world. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It certainly gives quick context to who the person is. Mark Zuckerberg is an "American entrepreneur". Marie Curie was a "Polish-French physicist". Trevor Linden is a "Canadian ice hockey player". And so too, Masrat Zahra is an "Indian photojournalist". This is Wikipedia's basic position, as discussed elsewhere above and in the MOS, and there should be a principled reason to displace it for Kashmiris. It certainly is informative that she is not, for example, like Farah Pandith, Kashmiri by ethnicity and birth but American by nationality.
There are many reasons one may wish to displace the usual rule for Kashmiris. For example, we may believe that using the word "Indian" on a Kashmiri person is akin to imposing an identity on them, and doing so represents a moral hazard for Wikipedia. Or we may believe that in cases involving disputed territory, we should use neutral terms. Or we may believe that the legal status of Kashmiris is ambiguous and "Indians" is an inaccurate descriptor. Or that it is misleading in some way to refer to a Kashmiri as an Indian, and ethnicity is the more accurate descriptor. These are all examples of the points of principle that I am looking for which can justify an exception for Kashmiri BLPs. As a community on Wikipedia, we should take a clear, defensible position grounded in the encyclopedia's interests and stick to it, without trying to please everyone. But without an exception grounded in principle, the basic position has to be the one enshrined in the MOS: Masrat Zahra, and other Kashmiris from Indian-administered Kashmir are Indians for the purposes of BLPs. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, they are not. MOS:ETHNICITY states clearly it is "the country" in which a person "acquires notability." In this instance, the subject acquired notability in a disputed region, Kashmir. (The pages of the region Kashmir and the major sub-regions: Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, and Aksai Chin state the fact of the dispute unambiguously in the lead sentence per a consensus (2019) of India and Pakistan editors supervised by an admin and supported by over half a dozen admins.) The NPOV version is what I have written. In other words, make no mention of nationality (whose interpretation in India (as distinct from citizenship) is complicated and controversial); simply state the place. Saying only "India" or "Indian" is no different from saying that K2 is in Pakistan, which I have just corrected. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Thanks for your input. If the existing consensus does apply here, then I am happy to take it as authority and apply it, whatever my opinion. It doesn't necessarily apply, but from this RfC it seems that there is little appetite for dealing with the complicated question of whether it does, and I sense that the others would agree if posed with the question. Since MOS:CONTEXTBIO/MOS:ETHNICITY says that the opening paragraph is meant to provide context, I guess I'll just assume that we've all agreed that "Indian" doesn't do it (because it's not NPOV - reference to the consensus you mentioned), and that "from Indian-administered Kashmir" does. That resolves the question for me. (I can't run with your reasoning - I'm not sure where you saw the words "acquires notability", but I cannot locate them in MOS:ETHNICITY.)
I also want to say, in case it has come across otherwise, that I've participated in this discussion with good intentions. I'm not aware that I've done or said anything out of line, but I did not intend to merely be difficult or disruptive. Best wishes, Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Non-Latin script in the infobox

[edit]

I removed non-Latin text from the infobox (in this case, the name of the person discussed in the article in Urdu).This is stylesheet here suggests removal of non-Latin script except in certain cases which clearly do not cover this article. I didn't rollback the changes since an experienced editor had reverted my changes. I would love to learn (from the editor preferably) what necessitates the same text in light of the consensus reached at the above linked page. Adilalishah 13:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adilalishah I am glad that you didn't rollback. However my edits were reverted by someone else and they did express their edit on their talk-page and I don't necessarily agree with their POV and decided not to enter into an irrelevant debate given my own busy academic schedule. As stated elsewhere, Urdu is not an Indic-script. WP:INDICSCRIPT specifically links Brahmic scripts and guides their avoidance - again not Urdu. Although there have been some little mentions of it in some discussions but consensus broadly says the use of Indic/Brahmic scripts of which Urdu is not a part. I believe, someone should initiate an MOS discussion on this whether Urdu/Arabic and other language scripts form a part or not. Sorry for the delayed response. I have been semi-active English Wikipedia for the last several months. ─ Aafī (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masrat_Zahra&oldid=1227585725"