User talk:TopGun/Archives/2015/June
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:TopGun. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Siachen Glacier (termination of CFL as per Karachi and Simla Agreements)
Aoa
Dear Sir, I have created a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Explanation_of_para_B_2_%28d%29_-_%27..Khor,_thence_north_to_the_glaciers%27_of_Karachi_Agreement-1949 after thorough research which explains the actual connotation of the phrase 'thence north to the glacier' in the Karachi Agreement. The Indians have since long deliberately misinterpreted its meaning and thereby claimed Siachen Glaciers to be theirs. I have tried adding this explanation to the Karachi Agreement page, but it was being reverted continuously. Hence, I thought of creating new page. I am new to Wiki, so dont know much of the criteria for publishing articles here. Please go through the page i have created, any more explanation on the issue can be seen at my blog where I have uploaded a couple of slides which Pakistan Foreign Office uses to explain our stance of Siachen. The link to the slides: http://xerics.blogspot.com/2014/07/truthfacts-about-pakistani-claim-over.html#.VW9ZDuEwFAA. I have only used the UN map from the UN website to support my research for the obvious reasons. Now I would request you, if you can to get the page published, please.PakSol (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ws. As you said, there already appear to be some pages which can accommodate this content. For that reason, it would be better to add the content (by gaining consensus) on the page you were first trying to add it to. Unless independently notable as an article, it should not have a separate page. If you need help getting consensus and are being reverted you should follow WP:DR. You can start an WP:RFC to invite input from the neutral editors if you think the content should be a part of an existing article. I'll also remind you that editwaring or trying to get the content in without consensus may get you sanctioned so you should make sure you are doing it the right way. Please also take a look at WP:RS. A link to your blog will not do. You will need to cite the UN map as published in a reliable news source or book. Hope this helps. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)I also suggest looking at WP:OR. The content appears to be the editor's interpretation of primary sources and that's not ok. Neither as a separate article nor in an existing article. Either that or look for sources that mirror the draft articles interpretation. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response. Would like to clarify that paraphrasing and putting words the facts mentioned in the original U.N document (whoch hapens to be a map) is infact not 'original research'. Pakistan was created in 1947, stating this in a new way will neither change the fact nor should it seem as if it has been researched. It's just that when discussing the Karachi Agreement, the Second Section of the agreement, being a map, is usually not referred to. I may still be wrong in understanding your POV, and if you still think that my draft will be treated like WP:OR, I wont mind as one cant fight the rules. In that case, I would simply add the Second Part of Karachi Agreement to the Original article present here at Wiki.PakSol (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- It would be much better to find a secondary source that interprets 'north of the glaciers'. Your draft article doesn't do that and that's why it gives the impression of being OR. (Apologies, TopGun, for using your talk page like this.)--regentspark (comment) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response. Would like to clarify that paraphrasing and putting words the facts mentioned in the original U.N document (whoch hapens to be a map) is infact not 'original research'. Pakistan was created in 1947, stating this in a new way will neither change the fact nor should it seem as if it has been researched. It's just that when discussing the Karachi Agreement, the Second Section of the agreement, being a map, is usually not referred to. I may still be wrong in understanding your POV, and if you still think that my draft will be treated like WP:OR, I wont mind as one cant fight the rules. In that case, I would simply add the Second Part of Karachi Agreement to the Original article present here at Wiki.PakSol (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)I also suggest looking at WP:OR. The content appears to be the editor's interpretation of primary sources and that's not ok. Neither as a separate article nor in an existing article. Either that or look for sources that mirror the draft articles interpretation. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, not being rude, but it is rather strange that the UN document which states the text of the Karachi Agreement when quoted as a source is not considered as an OR, even though it's 'English' is being misinterpreted. But when I am trying to post the Part-2 of the same very UN document which shows the marking of the CFL (as explained in words of the text of the agreement at Part-1), it becomes an OR? Sir, I humbly state that there's nothing to interpret here. Part-1 of the Karachi Agreement states the TEXT of the CFL (which is widely accepted and quoted). Part-2 of the (same) Karachi Agreement shows the (same) CFL marked on the map (which was not easily available previously), I am just trying to provide closure to a document by posting both of its parts. The interpretation of both the text and map can then be left to the reader. It is otherwise understood that no delineating of boundaries can be just be done by narrating the landmarks in text form, a map showing the illustration of the text is always there. Unfortunately, this map was never quoted before. If someone can prove that there was no map to the Agreement or that the map I am trying to present is not linked with the Karachi Agreement, then I will rest my case. Just because I tried "explaining" the otherwise self-explanatory map, does not make it into an OR, nor should it require any support from a secondary (independent) source because anyone reading the map understands what the map says. May be you are right that this map does not require a dedicated page on Wiki, but then I have added the map to the page about the Karachi Agreement, i hope that will not be a problem? Link to the edited page: Karachi Agreement PakSol (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want to clutter up TopGun's talk page and, obviously, we shouldn't be discussing this in a user talk page. I'm copying this over to Talk:Karachi Agreement. --regentspark (comment) 01:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking this off my talk, RP. Due process (read consensus and talkpage discussion) will probably help convert his edits to useful ones. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want to clutter up TopGun's talk page and, obviously, we shouldn't be discussing this in a user talk page. I'm copying this over to Talk:Karachi Agreement. --regentspark (comment) 01:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry, not being rude, but it is rather strange that the UN document which states the text of the Karachi Agreement when quoted as a source is not considered as an OR, even though it's 'English' is being misinterpreted. But when I am trying to post the Part-2 of the same very UN document which shows the marking of the CFL (as explained in words of the text of the agreement at Part-1), it becomes an OR? Sir, I humbly state that there's nothing to interpret here. Part-1 of the Karachi Agreement states the TEXT of the CFL (which is widely accepted and quoted). Part-2 of the (same) Karachi Agreement shows the (same) CFL marked on the map (which was not easily available previously), I am just trying to provide closure to a document by posting both of its parts. The interpretation of both the text and map can then be left to the reader. It is otherwise understood that no delineating of boundaries can be just be done by narrating the landmarks in text form, a map showing the illustration of the text is always there. Unfortunately, this map was never quoted before. If someone can prove that there was no map to the Agreement or that the map I am trying to present is not linked with the Karachi Agreement, then I will rest my case. Just because I tried "explaining" the otherwise self-explanatory map, does not make it into an OR, nor should it require any support from a secondary (independent) source because anyone reading the map understands what the map says. May be you are right that this map does not require a dedicated page on Wiki, but then I have added the map to the page about the Karachi Agreement, i hope that will not be a problem? Link to the edited page: Karachi Agreement PakSol (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Purple Barnstar | |
| For staying persistent and strong where it matters the most, and not losing faith when the going gets tough. Disputes are part and parcel of the editing process, and sometimes we end up in unfortunate situations where the actions of confronting editors can be disruptive, often getting the better of us. So let bygones be bygones, cheer up, give yourself a pat for weathering it all firmly, and keep doing what you do :) Mar4d (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC) |
- You're welcome. And I'd like to reciprocate the same. Good luck with future editing :p Mar4d (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Need your comments
Sir, your comments required on Talk:Mukti_Bahini#recent_additions PakSol (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please take a look at WP:CANVASSING and avoid leaving messages to talkpages rather use WP:RFC that will automatically inform uninvolved editors randomly. You may also take this to Dispute resolution notice board. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)