Talk:Asghar Bukhari

Untitled

Can anyone editing this page recently, please enter into a conversation with me, as I would like to sort out any differences we have. Currently I feel the changes have had a slight bias and new material added by myself has all been referenced, so it should be good to stand. However feel free to explain why you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladerunner786 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack claim?

I looked at the article, possibly too quickly, but I'm not seeing what would constitute an attack. Can someone enlighten me?--SPhilbrickT 22:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this The page barely has a few lines about the university, etc... followed by more than 30 lines of controversy. It did not give any biographical information, and seems to have been created primarily for the Controvorsy section. There is hardly the other side of the picture, or anything else to offer in this article aside from controversy and "attacks". After refernces, there seem to be extrapolations without any backups, as well as whole paragraphs about Irving. To summarise, poor linking, extrapolations, lack of content, single sided - mainly controversy, goes off on tangent talking about other people, etc... Thanks again Asifkhanj (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the relative weight on controversy versus other aspects. However, CSD is for blatant cases, and I don't see this as blatant, especially as much of the material is referenced. (I didn't track down the references, but I don't see any claim that the information is not supported by the references.)

If you feel that the article should be removed, consider filing an AfD, where the merits can be debated. The results of an AfD discussion are not always simply keep or delete, it can be the case that editors decide to remove the more egregious problems, or push for more balance. --SPhilbrickT 22:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Update Required

This page needs updating, requires more discussion. 

Mpac00 (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes this page is out of date, i'll search for more content to put in. AanikaM (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Updates/Reversion

Please discuss before changing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV before making further edits; articles must present all facets, both positive and negative. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I did review it, and with my changes, I think it does give it an impartial tone, and balance, Can you pinpoint which areas are of concern to you before you do the wholesale reverts. Asifkhanj (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

The entire body of this article is 'Controversy'! Is there anyone who is familiar with the subject of the article who can sort this out? Shiningroad (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asghar Bukhari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011101342/http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=181 to http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=181

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)