Talk:Shahid Masood

Untitled

The article had some missing end tags. Fixed.--ISKapoor (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok! Im on it !!--Srkamal (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are you removing stuff

Who is removing stuff from the article? I had added his work on Express and Royal News but someone is vandalizing the page. Srkamal (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversies

In 2010, The Express Tribune reported that a Karachi resident filed a petition against Masood and asked the court to take action against Masood for encouraging cultural hatred through his TV show.

In 2013, Dawn reported that an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan ordered Masood to telecast an apology for telecasting derogatory remarks on the judiciary after which Masood submitted written apologies before the court.

In August 2016, Dawn reported that PEMRA imposed a 45-day ban on Masood show aired on the ARY News after Masood alleged in a programme that the chief justice of Sindh High Court took a bribe and later did not fulfil his promises. He was also banned from participating in any other TV show during this ban period.

In March 2016, The Express Tribune reported that Ishaq Dar sent a legal notice to Masood for allegedly levelling baseless allegations in his TV programme and demanded that Masood offer an apology. 5.107.75.109 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Deletion without consensus

• The question, that was raised on the talk page; was not addressed by Saqib. I edited and improved the article, but he reverted. I got the illegitimate edit-warring notice, on my talk page. A bunch of the editors had also attempted, to prevent me from editing, in the past. I went on long Wiki-holiday. When I came back; the same practice took place. As a result, the articles, which I created, became under the targeting, to involve, and drag me, into the edit warring. The well-sourced content, sources were removed since its URL was not working, and deleted nearly all the content and sections, without the discussion on the talk page, to reach a consensus. However, such edits do not execute what the rules describe; therefore, I restore that once again, assuming good faith and the best for the project. Editors, who disagree, please, discuss on the talk page to reach a consensus. I hope, uninvolved editors will review that. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Justice007: There is no consensus for the repeated re-insertion of promotional, advertorial puffery, certainly; thus it will be removed immediately where encountered. Many thanks, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You may rewrite and remove the puffery terms. No problems, but not the entire article without reaching a consensus. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that; luckily, your permission is not a requirement. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not mean that. Collaboration prevails. We do not own the articles, we must be fair and neutral. It executes the dignity, that's all. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well said User:Justice007. But as far I can see you're not willing to demonstrate what you say. If you think the language of article in question should be fair and neutral then why you re-inserting the controversial poorly sourced and original research material back into page ? --Saqib (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Saqib, first, you display the way of revenge since you tag illegitimately on that article to drag me in the edit-warring. It is an empty conception. As an admin, you should know that deleting entire content of the article, needs consensus if it is challenged, but you did, without that. I edited, and removed all promotional, and puffery content, even though you stand on your point of view. You should have rewritten the article in a neutral language, but you chose the easy way to delete it. Do you think, other editors are here for nothing? I am not the best one than others. I respect other's edits too, not imposing my personal rules. We can work together for the project. We should help the subjects to improve their articles rather becoming the cause to spoil that. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't need your permission to remove the unsourced information. We're here to write quality articles not detailed and lengthy pages that are based on original research and unreliable sourced. Wikipedia verifiability guidelines clearly says that when information is unsourced, it can be boldly removed. There's nothing personal here so your accusation regarding revenge is invalid.--Saqib (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Justice007, here are (archived) links of some of the reliable sources (which were removed by user Saqib with these edits): 1 (from Arab News), 2 (from Associated Press of Pakistan), 3 (from The News International), 4 & 5 (both from Daily Times (Pakistan)). You could expand this BLP using these sources. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

NitinMlk, I do not think here exists neutrality. If an admin does not respect the rules, who cares? Here is discussion, even though he applies his choice because of the rules. Sorry, I cannot help in such a direction.Justice007 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm expanding the article using the provided sources. Alas I could have find them a bit earlier. --Saqib (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Justice007, don't give up! If you will add reliably-sourced content, keeping WP:NPOV in mind, no one will remove it. BTW, I just stumbled upon this article. And I don't really know anything about this article's subject.

Saqib, thanks for you latest additions. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope now the article is in pretty good shape.--Saqib (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive efforts. It seems Dr. Masood was involved in a lot of controversies. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018

change "in 2004 from ARY One Wolrld" to "in 2004 from ARY One World" Umarmunir94 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

The source clearly states conspiracy theorist anchorperson Dr Shahid Masood, so that does not seem to be a BLP violation. El_C 22:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a different source than was being used to source this point in the lede in some earlier edits. I will review it and then open a discussion accordingly. MPS1992 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at WP:BLPN. MPS1992 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Per the discussion at BLPN, I have reverted the protected page to MPS1992's version. El_C 01:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)