User talk:Mansoor Ijaz/Archive 1
User Talk 22 JAN 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Dear Mr Ijaz I am glad that you are satisfied with recent edits to the Wikipedia article regarding you, in order to keep up with what seems to many motorsport fans as an extremely drawn-out and unsettling saga. Thank you for the link to your interview regarding the Quantum/LotusF1 deal as published at Grandprix247. I am sure that you, more than anyone, wish for the LotusF1 transaction to reach a speedy conclusion to avoid further doubt of your word and to start yielding the intended benefits. A key requirement of information conveyed in Wikipedia is that it is verifiable, a measure designed to provide a degree of quality control in a project that welcomes all to contribute - by requiring reputable published sources to support assertions. It is therefore appreciated if you can continue to provide such hyperlinks if you wish to correct any future factual errors. It will be a pleasure to trim the Formula One section of the Wikipedia article once the affair reaches a conclusion and the ins and outs along the way can be seen in a historical context. Kind regards Guffydrawers (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
User Talk 24 JAN 2014 edit
Extended content
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Dear Mr Ijaz
Thank you for your message on my talk page. If you wish to edit the article concerning you, there are two options:
Await expiry of semi-protection
After 23 February 2014 (at 02:32 UTC) the article will be editable by all.
Acquire autoconfirmed status
Your Wikipedia user account will become autoconfirmed when it has made at least 10 edits (and is over 4 days old). The vast majority of articles are not protected and can be freely edited.
Please, however, be aware of the Wikipedia rules on Conflict of Interest.
Kind regards
Guffydrawers (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 16 MAR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Not a webhost Wikipedia is NOT a webhost to support your personally approved version of an article. We have no obligation to help you in your business dealings. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It is inadvisable to use words like 'libel' or 'slander' on Wikipedia - we have a strict policy of blocking from editing persons making what are perceived to be legal threats - see WP:NLT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 05:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 05:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Ijaz. You ask if there's a middle ground and if you can make suggestions. The answer is yes to both. Please read WP:COIADVICE. The accepted way for subjects of articles to influence/suggest content is to use the article's talk page - Talk:Mansoor Ijaz. Example: I think this should be changed [give proposed wording] because [give reason]. The more specific your suggestions are, the quicker they'll be addressed by another editor. --NeilN talk to me 06:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC) By the way, I saw your note on Drmies' talk page. Overlinking has nothing to do with sources. It is a style guideline - WP:OVERLINK - "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --NeilN talk to me 06:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
First off, my comments regarding your business dealings would be equally applicable to negative news. Your business dealings really don't belong here unless they're derived from things other than news reports, but negative news equally needs something better than news reports. We have a Wikipedia is not the newspaper section, which tons of people really don't care to observe — too many to enforce, really. As an academic, I tend to stay away from articles about living people and existing companies because it's simply too much effort to ensure that articles are based on secondary sources, rather than primary sources such as news reports. You've discovered a problem that I've been trying to resolve for a long time, without success. I'm sorry, and I wish that it could be resolved. Regarding your comments about other articles ("I can give five examples immediately..."), let me point you to another page WP:WAX (I have no clue why they called it that), which basically says that you shouldn't compare your article against others, since anything's liable to be worked on. I'm not doing this because I'm telling you to stop complaining: I'm doing this because if you say this in other forums, someone might point you there to get you to stop. In other words, people will listen to you less if you say this. Now on both your article and those, I'd like you to remember something: neither the current nor any past forms are official or stable. You can't assume that another businessman's article is in line with our policies. For a random example, look at Mike Brown — most of the article is essentially people complaining about his actions. Nowhere near neutral! By the time you look at it, I will have marked it for non-neutrality. Meanwhile, on your own article, please don't say things like "This version of the article was locked and approved by Wikipedia Editor John Reaves four months ago". As our protection policy notes, pages aren't locked to ensure that they stay the same: they're locked because of immediate problems, which in this case involved people hacking up the article. I know I've not totally responded to your concerns, but I'm afraid I'll give you a TLDR response if I answer everything. Let me know that you've read what I wrote, and I'll come back and respond more. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I am mentioned often by both sides of the argument on counterterror issues, Kashmir, India-Pakistan, etc etc. I urge you to look at the type of editing being done. What sections, what type of edits, and you will then readily see for yourself what the problem is. Go and review Husain Haqqani's article. It reads like an advertisement for the guy. No one seems to want to do anything about that....... My full name is Musawer Mansoor Ijaz. But I am known globally as Mansoor Ijaz --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your attentiveness to detail. Let's take it point by point: 1. Varadarajan was a reporter at TOI at the time. The op-ed pieces I referred to were my own.... and since I have written only in the highest standard papers and journals, I feel the quality of my own reflections is accurate and certainly fact-checked and authentic. 2. I do not know why the links have disappeared, but I don't use the mediums you suggest using. I have only email and blackberry. Never used social media. I have the snapshots safely tucked away and obviously cannot upload them as images in Wikimedia due to copyright issues. But I have them as they originally appeared online. 3. The "Sudan letter" is the image in the version you snapshotted and sent to me. It is the image that I am asking to have restored as it is the image of the letter that I carried from Bashir to Clinton. An image of that letter appeared in the Vanity Fair article that is part of the references on the reference list. 4. What I mean is that the first edit done by an IP address this morning that started all the ruckus was a wholesale removal of the Formula One section of the article. That was done, curiously, on the same day that the first race of the F1 2014 season was taking place in Melbourne. This was not coincidence in my view. The portal that did it was BSkyB out of the UK. What I meant by "contrary" is that you said you like to work on articles bit by bit, and instead the starting point today in this whole affair of us getting to this point was a section deletion, which, if I read you correctly, should not have been allowed or even possible. I agree that there are valid points made about the convoluted nature of the F1 deal -- banks in today's world are a royal pain to deal with, but there was no thoughtful consideration given to how it might be done better -- just a slash and burn philosophy and RedPen has taken a brazen attitude to just doing it his/her way rather than in the collegiate manner this was intended to do be done. Look at how I tried to fit within the community guidelines suggested by NeilN. Did anyone pay any attention to a word I said? Not one iota. So what was the point then? I registered under my real name so I don't have to worry that someone accuses me of bias, and instead what I see is that if you don't reveal who you are or what your agenda might be, you can pretty much do what you want to anyone's article. I don't find comfort in any of this process as being ethically correct or honest -- until I saw your comments, I really was going to give up and hand this over to counsel for further action. With your intervention, I am trying hard to find a way to do this right, but what I see is an incremental approach on your part, thoughtful as it might be, being overshadowed and being made irrelevant by the much more aggressive manner of editing of others. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
We just don't use op-ed pieces, as a matter of principle: they're not the kind of sources on which encyclopedias are based. As far as the images, I didn't realise that you were talking about File:Bashir letter to Hamilton.jpg and File:2000.08.17 KASHMIR Sayed Salahuddin Letter to Clinton on Peace Offer.jpg. I'd advise against displaying those in the article, simply because images of text don't generally contribute much to an article. The best solution might be to link the images somewhere, whether in a see-also section or somewhere appropriate within the text. Perhaps something like As far as bit-by-bit versus drastic, I prefer to work bit-by-bit, but I'm willing to make big changes when necessary, e.g. when a whole section needs to be excised. See this edit, for example. Moreover, I must have confused you, because from a technical perspective, there's no reason for wholesale chops to be impossible, and it's entirely allowed when done in good faith. "Allowed" doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be put back; my point is that someone doing this kind of thing won't get in trouble simply for cutting it. As far as the merits of the section, the detail is far more than we need here; it's basically a timeline of details that aren't important to the general reader. Imagine someone writing about you a century from now — would they provide all the specific dates and similar details? To the contrary, I believe we'd end up with something such as the following: This gets the point across without discussing the extensive detail that's really useful only for people involved in the process. Yes, removing all mention of it was unhelpful, but keeping everything wasn't a good idea either. Now as far as the anonymous editing, I agree that this is sometimes a problem; the one-paragraph "Randy in Boise" page sums it up well. This is basically why we have to watch articles: we need to be ready to revert blatant vandalism, and when non-vandals add or subtract content unhelpfully, we need to question it and sometimes remove it entirely. I wish that there were a simpler approach, but there isn't. If you're interested in this article and want to see it improve, you're going to have to watch out for problematic edit(or)s sometimes. Finally I've not yet read the text you posted from TOI. I'll read it, think of some suggestions, and come back. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 Message added 14:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. NeilN talk to me 14:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Note also Talk:Mansoor_Ijaz#Formula_One. --NeilN talk to me 15:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC) |
Suggestion Box -- Mansoor Ijaz article edit
This section is created to allow User:Mansoor Ijaz to interact with and discuss potential future changes to sections of article Mansoor Ijaz
Article LEDE edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Section to add suggestions for the Lead section of article Mansoor Ijaz here: @Nyttend: a reference is needed for the Formula One sentence. I can suggest one: Noble, Jonathan. "Lotus Formula 1 team talks with Quantum continue". Autosport. Retrieved 21 January 2014. or you can find one of your own. Suggest Bill Clinton be linked in the first instance of mentioning him in the article, ie Bill Clinton. Also suggest making "Memogate" as Memogate for ease of link and reference to the main Memogate article. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: My name is actually an Arabic name -- both Musawer and Mansoor are taken from the Quran, holy book of Muslims, and each are one of the 99 names attributed to God in the Quran. I don't think there is a material difference in the Arabic and Urdu spelling, as both draw from Arabic letters, but the name is an Arabic name, not an Urdu one. Hope that helps. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: I don't know if you can see my sandbox or not, but I reorganized the sentences a bit to make it flow logically from summary intro to professional affiliation to media commentator to political life to international negotiator -- sort of sequenced a bit better and tighter logic flow. Let me know if you can't see it and I will paste it in here. Working on the Professional life section now.--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC) |
Article PERSONAL LIFE edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Section to add suggestions for Personal Life section of article Mansoor Ijaz here: John Gamble was indeed a major influence on my early development. We called him the Gentle Giant. I learned more about discipline, a proper competitive spirit and how to deal with my own race issues in rural Virginia life as a child (he is an African American) than anyone else I know. Now, the problem is that User:Drmies wants secondary source verification of events that took place nearly 30 years ago when this type of electronic medium did not exist. I have, as I did with the TOI articles, old clippings from University of Virginia newspapers and other local newspapers that were written about my career at the time. These articles go into some detail of my inspiration and relationships with those who helped me in my weightlifting achievements. When I tried to upload those images, they were deleted for copyright infringement (I did that when I was not aware of how Wikimedia Commons works). I would ask that the sentence about John be re-added, as he was a major influence in my life. Here is that sentence with its reference link as it was in the article before the cuts (please edit as you see fit):
CUT THIS [He placed first at the IPF World Powerlifting Championships in 1984. He finished 3rd in the 1982 World’s Strongest Man competition and went on to serve as Strength & Conditioning Coach of the Miami Dolphins under coach Don Shula from 1994 until 2005.] END CUT --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Trimmed Gamble sentence --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC) |
Article PROFESSIONAL LIFE edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Section to add suggestions for Professional Life section of article Mansoor Ijaz here: I am working in the Sandbox on some suggestions for the Professional life section that I will add as suggestions here later on. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: I have prepared a draft version of the Business career (perhaps more appropriately named Professional life) section in my Sandbox. If you cannot see it there, please let me know and I will paste it in here. I have not included any references yet -- thought perhaps you could read it and see how it looks and then let me know what you think needs referencing. Some of it is available in the Losing Bin Laden book. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC) @Ryuichinaruhodo: I think the thrust of arguments made by Nyttend, NeilN and TheRedPenOfDoom are essentially correct (too complicated and too much emphasis on one single data point in my career, as much as it may be of significant public interest due to the high profile of the investment being considered. May I suggest a better way to do this edit you have added in -- to have a look at my Sandbox where I have proposed a fuller narrative that is accurate regarding my Professional life (which I think is a better way to describe my career as I have not had a traditional "business career"), and then integrate your addition rather than in a seperate article section, into a sub-section of the article as "===Formula One==="? Perhaps this then puts the Formula One bit in more perspective and respects the points made by Nyttend, NeilN and TheRedPenOfDoom. I also think some mention has to be made that Quantum fulfilled the essential obligations of its original contract but recently introduced banking regulations in the countries where the companies that were part of the deal operated required a restructuring of the transaction. Without that, the gap of time in your edit makes no sense. These are my suggestions for the re-work.
@TheRedPenOfDoom: these are people that I worked with my entire career and who, each one of them, had an instrumental impact on my life's work. That is surely about me, is it not? As example, we did not just work in professional pursuits, but in authoring articles together as op-eds, and both Woolsey and Abrahamson attended my wedding, Abe as a groomsman. These people are like my family. I don't mention them to name-drop, but to make clear who were the influences in my life. That is what you and others keep saying, that the article is about me, not these people. But these people are as much the shaping force in my life as my own mother and father were. Is there middle ground here? --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: re: sourcing, I just haven't added that in yet. It's all there and well-sourced. Shall I do that so you can see sourcing? --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: As you made these changes, may I ask you to fix the following: these two sentences do not belong in this section. They are not part of my professional life, but indeed are matters of personal interest and I suggest should therefore be placed back in the Personal life section of the article. Neither position was held as a paid position of any type and both were part of my personal interests, just as the Council on Foreign Relations is and just as the Non-Proft activity is.
--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: Before I go in and source the Professional life DRAFT in my Sandbox, would you kindly have a look and see if this version works? @TheRedPenOfDoom: references added -- please have a look and let me know if you feel any further sourcing is needed, or any other modifications. The references are listed raw. Obviously in the article, I would clean up how they are to be presented in the References section --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Article MEDIA COMMENTATOR edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Section to add suggestions for Media Commentator section of article Mansoor Ijaz here: @TheRedPenOfDoom: my suggestions for the MEDIA Section of the article in light of your comment on collaborative efforts with some of my well-known colleagues over the years can be found in my Sandbox. At the same time I added in the new material, I trimmed the old so the net effect does not lengthen the article. |
Article INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATOR edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Section to add suggestions for International Negotiator section of article Mansoor Ijaz here: Please see Sandbox for initial re-write suggestions. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
Article MEMOGATE edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Section to add suggestions for Memogate section of article Mansoor Ijaz here: Please see Sandbox for re-write suggestions and source referencing for text. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC) |
User Talk 20 MAR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I'm sorry. I meant to respond last night, but I had to go to bed early, and by this morning I'd totally forgotten. One technical issue: as far as I can remember, linking a username in an edit summary, as you did here, doesn't alert the user, unlike linking a username in text. Point by point responses to what you've said, based on this revision of the sandbox:
As far as I can tell, you've improved lots of things with the sandbox proposal, and nothing has been made worse. I'll wait for input from TRPOD, and I'll hope to hear from anyone else, but I think we could try to run with the sandbox text. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: On Gamble, the point was only to show that he was a world-class weightlifter himself, not just any coach. I feel it is relevant, but it's your call. On Miniter, done. I agree. Don't know how to do it as well as you do, so I will leave that to you. When you are done with your changes, I will perhaps go in and do some tidying up that I've noticed with my old op-ed editor's eyes..... --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: Will need your help on one other item -- during the moments after the weekend foofaw when I was considering just leaving the Wiki community (until your intervention stopped that notion in my head), I had asked for all of the images to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. How do we undo that? And can you help? Also, can we restore the image of the All American certificate so it can be embedded as a link in the weightlifting paragraph? Sorry to give you so much homework. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 21 MAR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
@Nyttend: For completeness, I drafted into the Sandbox version the current relevant information from the article itself so if the proposed Sandbox suggestions are accepted, it is an easier move from Sandbox to Article in complete, integrated form. It went back to 4 paragraphs, but this was necessary to separate ideas and insure clarity rather than crunching unrelated topics into two paragraphs. Hope that works. If accepted, can I count on you to Wikify the references and draft them into the body text where designated or shall I do that? --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Good morning, Sir. I have now finished off the Media section re-write with necessary links. I am happy to have the references managed any way you see fit. If you need another type to replace the ones there now, I can research and suggest. There's plenty of them..... On the Professional life section, I left the references separate for now so you and other editors reviewing can decide what's really relevant and what not. As with the Media stuff, some of this is now so well known about me that it doesn't really require referencing. But I don't want to make those decisions. Would appreciate that you can spend a little time on this today so we can advance to the final sections in terms of re-writes.... --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
(unindented) @Nyttend: Try this one -- maybe we use the words, "was put on hold indefinitely" as this source states. http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/apr2009/id20090415_380317.htm Also requesting permission to insert this sentence back into Personal life section.
--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
(unindenting) God bless. Have a good evening and good luck with the picture sorting. That's my next task of learning on Wiki stuff -- how to properly upload and license images so they can be used throughout the Wiki community. Please don't forget to ping an administrator at Wikimedia Commons on leaving my images intact, and if I need to make that request, for someone to tell me how and where. On other articles, I was thinking of writing one on my youngest brother, Mujeeb, who is one of the world's leading battery engineers in the locomotion systems category (planes, trains and automobiles, so to speak), and one about Klaus Buescher, who was perhaps as great an investing legend as Peter Lynch at Magellan. These are long-term projects for when I don't have so much to do at 5am...... Good evening --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
User Talk 22 MAR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Media commentator section to be edited and moved to the main article today --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: after reviewing my request on the small additions to finish off the Media section stuff, I wanted to let you know that I've now completed the hard edits I was going to do for the International negotiator section (both sub-sections). Those are there for your review when you get to them. I cut both sub-sections pretty well but tried to keep the essence of detail that makes my involvement hang together in each of the instances. I recommend wholesale deletion of the Osama bin Laden sub-section. It is a mish mash of stuff that really doesn't belong in the article and will lend greatly to trim the overall article down to a reasonable size. Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 23 MAR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
@Nyttend: Good morning, Sir. I have added in further references for the Kashmir sub-section, trimmed the section further and also trimmed the Sudan section to read more clearly. Please let me know how you see those now. Also, did you find a reference you liked to expand on the media sentence in Professional life from the Google search page I offered? --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: Good evening, Sir. Memogate section now re-written and referenced for your review. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
(unindenting)@Nyttend: Thank you, checking on all of that now. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 24 MAR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
@Nyttend: I found an appropriate reference on the sanctions refusal statement here: http://articles.latimes.com/1997-01-23/business/fi-21252_1_anti-terrorism-act. The article, written by a Washington Post reporter who reported often on Sudan, states in the second paragraph that April sanctions remained in place, although it also says that Clinton exempted Sudan on oil development only to allow Occidental Petroleum to go in and bid for the Southern Sudan's oil reserves. That's the closest I could come -- when I say Washington refused, keep in mind I'm talking about "reverse sanctions" Sudan request of US in return for "counterterrorism cooperation" US need from Sudan. That's what was refused. Perhaps that helps clear it up. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
(unindenting) @Nyttend: you can find the Ottaway article here: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-718226.html but you have to sign up for a bunch of stuff that I did not see the point in doing. But it's all there.... --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I thought we had agreed last evening or over the weekend that the Assertions section would go out and we would incorporate the important sentences into Sudan section where it actually belongs. Assertions is simply not relevant anymore. It should be cut in its entirety because the key points have been taken above already. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Here are two good examples of where my introductions on television news programs of repute introduced me as a frequent op-ed columnist:
There are probably four or five more like that, and if I dig hard, I can find the same intros on CNN and other news channels during my appearances -- this was part of how I was known in the media world at that time. If you accept that Peter Bergen, a nemesis of mine, wrote in his hatchet piece on me during the Memogate hearings that I said openly how many op-eds I had written (about 170 since 1996), you can use that as a source too. I'm now working on Fox News, although on its WIKI page, if you look under regular contributors and guests, you will still see my name listed there. Contributor is another word for "paid".... or "retained". Frankly, I don't really care anymore how you do this part. We've done such a marvelous job together on this that the Fox News thing is a triviality in comparison. The point I tried to make, which you still have not fully taken on board, is that my media life was a shield. I went out and did hard things to make the world a better place. The only way I could defend myself, or present my ideas in my own crafted words was to write or appear on television and pontificate. (It = media writing and television appearances below) It allowed me to hold Benazir Bhutto accountable. It allowed me to hold Bill Clinton accountable. It allowed me to hold Sandy Berger and Susan Rice accountable. It allowed me to hold Pervez Musharraf accountable. It allowed me to hold the entire Zardari government accountable -- three men lost their jobs because of my writings about their wrongdoing.... and I can go on. The point I have tried to make is that you cannot trivialize the importance media played as an instrument of capacity in my lifetime and the way in which it molded my personality. If this article is truly about me, you cannot trivialize this component because it is the single most visible manifestation of my Herculean efforts to do good against evil and right the many wrongs that affect people with no voice. I leave it here with you..... --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Please would you have a look in the Sandbox at how I propose the media write in to read and how I organized the paragraphs so we bring media in before memberships? Thank you ever so much -- we are all good if the media paragraph edits work for you. And thanks for the information above. All understood. Please keep my page on your Watchlist and keep and eye on it -- it's an example article now, I hope. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Here is a SAJA http://www.sajaforum.org/2007/11/prez-politics-m.html that should get you close enough on the Fox contract end date to use the language I had proposed. Working on the CFR matter now. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Also, why do you mention Los Angeles Times and not The New York Times and why do you keep the "the" outside the embedded link when the formal names of these papers are properly The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The New York Times? Just curious -- --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: SAJA is an organ of the Columbia School of Journalism and was founded by its current dean, Sree Sreenivasan. It is the largest single grouping of South Asian journalists anywhere in the world and is as credible as The New York Times in terms of sourcing. The reason I gave it is because it is linked to the Columbia Journalism School as your first source was. I completely disagree with your characterization of it as a source. Sree is one of the most honorable -- could easily be Peter Jennings on the Nightly News -- guys you will ever know about, and he runs a tight ship over there. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: without sounding nitpicky, because it's late for you and I need to get to sleep so I can be reasonably alert in the banks tomorrow, could we chisel this bit as follows: OLD: Away from Crescent and the media Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: and one final tiny little issue: could we make the following minor adjustment? OLD: remaining incomplete as negotiations continued into 2014
|
User Talk 25 MAR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
@Nyttend: Dear friend, this part is still not accurate the way written. And it reads as if something went wrong when it did not. In fact, I continued to appear on Fox News all the way through the Memogate hearings. So if I could ask you to go back and look at the way I did it, that was a very carefully chosen set of words that convey accurately what the situation is. Your words, in this instance only, do not -- and almost convey the opposite of the truth. Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Good evening. Sorry to hear about your snow -- I was in Detroit earlier in the winter when it was hell froze over there.... I don't know how to resolve your need for references that just don't exist. I've given you the factual data in that last sentence I want included in because that is truthfully as it happened. All I can offer is the list of available appearances that I did over the years you mention -- basically, after Memogate, my wife and family and I made a decision that I would simply drop out of any media engagements whatsoever no matter the reason. That's why I don't write op-eds anymore. That's why I refuse television interview requests or any other type of media. Once the Judicial Commission report was out in June 2012 that said I spoke the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I did not see a need to rub it in Haqqani's face, and so I just decided to drop out. The way I have written the sentence, it says that in an elegant tone. In the listing below, there are enough different sources from across the globe, on and off Fox News, to prove that I was no longer an exclusive contributor and that I continued to appear on TV all over the place. There were appearances in every year -- some of those were uploaded to YouTube and some not, depending on the importance of the story or interview. Hope this helps sort it out -- I still believe the way I have written the ending of that paragraph on media matters is the correct way to present the factual data. LIST OF PROGRAM APPEARANCES 2006-2012
Thank you for your consideration. Stay safe in the snowy conditions. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Apologies -- it's the first real editorial disagreement we've had, but you've just not done this one the way it adds anything of value to the article. I'm going to try a fix now myself, and if you disagree you can revert. Thank you --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC) |
User Talk 26 MAR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
@Nyttend: I hope the way I have adjusted your last drafting in to the section, as set forth below, works for you now. This version says clearly with evidence what we mean to say, and re-organizes the overlaps so the overall paragraph reads smoother. Neither do we draw unnecessary attention to an irrelevant fact in the overall pathway of my life's work. If you agree, nothing else needs to be done, as I made the necessary changes and notated them as such. If you disagree, then I suppose we can revert and try it another way. I think this is a good balance and achieves the necessary Wiki requirement of anything quoted being citable. Thank you for your patience with my point of view on this. Have a good evening. Get some rest from all that snow shoveling! --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Welcome back. If you permit me -- the edit was a mistake on my part. While I was waiting to hear back from you last night, I had done a draft in to see how it would look in terms of space and size of images, and I inadvertently hit Save when I went to exit because I got distracted by a phone call. Nothing sinister intended. I figured there was no point in giving you the explanation until you were back online. Feel free to revert my whole edit and do as you see fit. Hope all else is well over there -- what happened to your internet connection? bad weather? Best, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: One other point on the above -- I have not felt once the need to do something you did not agree with first since we started collaborating because I, like you, believe in collegiality and working together. It was just a mistake that I could not take back, and decided on the mainpage was not the place to go back and forth -- sort of oops, how do I fix that -- if you wish, I am happy to go in and revert now that I've told you what happened.--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Ijaz has also served as a media commentator and has written numerous opinion pieces for internationally known publications including the London Financial Times as well as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times in the United States. On television, he has served as a guest commentator for U.S. networks CNN, ABC, and Fox News, as well as for the BBC in the United Kingdom. Hired as a Fox News contributor in late 2001, Ijaz appeared as a counterterrorism and foreign affairs analyst on various network programming. By 2007, his appearances on Fox were no longer exclusive to the network. He continued to appear periodically for various networks in Pakistan, India and the U.S. into early 2012 as Pakistan's Supreme Court-appointed Judicial Commission began the Memogate inquiry. |
User Talk 27 MAR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Never mind; I can't quite figure out which of your edits was a mistake, so let's just leave things alone unless you want to do a self-revert. I failed to say anything on the bits about the American Muslims. The article's already in Category:American Muslims; I assume you're Sunni, purely because Islam in Pakistan says that Sunnis are the majority, but the article doesn't say that, so I'm not going to add a category that's not rooted in the article's text. I'm not fond of putting you onto the list of American Muslims, purely because I don't know where you'd go: it has separate sections for people in business and in politics, adding you to both wouldn't be a good idea, and adding a "businessmen and diplomats" line would be worse. Meanwhile, I don't think you should appear in the Islam in the United States article. I suppose this will come across somewhat offensively, so I apologise now: I'm doing my best to explain myself in a respectful manner, but I can't figure out how to say it. Most people who belong there are significant at least partially on religious grounds, which I don't consider you to be — I'm basically meaning that you're notable primarily because you're a businessman and have played a part in international politics, while as far as I can tell, your faith hasn't been a big part of the reason that people have paid attention to you. In other words, I get the impression that you'd get similar amounts of attention (at least in the English-language sources) if you were an atheist or a Christian; you're very different from someone like Alexander Russell Webb (known largely because he was a Muslim and would be rather insignificant otherwise), or Keith Ellison, a U.S. Representative whose faith has attracted tons of attention. Furthermore, some people not primarily significant on religious grounds belong in the article, but they're generally the individuals who are well known before converting, such as Muhammad Ali, or significant entertainment figures who people might not think of as Muslims, e.g. Mike Tyson or the rapper Ice Cube. In short, your significance doesn't appear to be related to your religion, and people aren't going to see you either as a prominent Muslim American or as an American who's not expected to be a Muslim. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: In no particular order, or importance of content, here are some of the articles I've written over the years about American Muslim civil liberties issues. These are intended only as an indication of how I added a voice to guide our democracy's discourse on the issue of American Muslims in US political life. I hope these perspectives will give you and other editors who care to look a better understanding of where religion fit in my life's work:
(unindenting) @Nyttend: To save you some time editing, I have placed the reference in the proper place and made the necessary grammar adjustments in a DRAFT that I left in my Sandbox. Hopefully that helps -- I think I got it all there in the proper spaces. Thank you for the attention to that detail -- glad I found the reference. Working on sources for the politics paragraph now. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC) |
User Talk 28 MAR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
@Nyttend: please find below some references that I located on the proposed politics paragraph -- kindly let me know if any of these work. My proposed draft is set forth below as well.
Ijaz also used his fundraising results to advance his causes in Congress, appearing as an expert witness in front of committees in the Senate on extremist threats faced by the United States[6][citation needed] and in the House of Representatives to advocate for Washington to adopt a policy of constructive engagement with rogue Muslim countries affected by U.S. sanctions[7]. As he rose in prominence in Democratic Party circles, allegations of conflicts with Ijaz's business interests also surfaced, although they were never proven.[3] In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Ijaz had a public falling out with senior Clinton-era officials, including the former president, Sandy Berger, and Susan Rice, over what he deemed failures in their counterterrorism policies during Clinton's two terms in office.[8][9] In 2007, Nevada Republicans approached Ijaz to run against Sen. Harry Reid, in a bid to unseat the Senate Majority Leader, but Ijaz declined.[10]
ADDING IN THIS SECTION FROM SANDBOX TO ARCHIVE USER TALK ON NEW PARAGRAPH ADDITION TO PROFESSIONAL LIFE 28 MAR 2014 Mansoor Ijaz Sandbox Discussion @FreeRangeFrog: Is that the right place for the reference I gave you? I think the one you put in belonged where you had asked for the [citation needed] marker. I think the first one is a challenge to find that easily -- the best would be to use the <ref="Miniter 2013"> reference because all of my political life is covered in a chapter called "The Friend of Bill". Hope that is helpful. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
(unindenting) @FreeRangeFrog: I would ask that you have a look at the Memogate image insertion. And don't forget that really "in need of help" in the other Memogate section we discussed (HH). You have been just terrific to work with. Many many thanks. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: I went ahead and made the changes Nyttend suggested while I was doing some re-scaling and re-positioning of the images for better viewing. Thank you again for all your help today. Great to work with you -- your new job as Admin is well-deserved. Best, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 02 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I'm somewhat confused regarding your comments about the Christian Science Monitor article: you say that it's relevant to one of my comments, but I can't remember saying anything about which this is relevant. Could you remind me about the context? The Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History is vaguely in the same situation. Meanwhile, regarding the op-eds you gave me, I'm not sure that we should be using them as anything beyond "Ijaz has supported X" and "Ijaz has said we shouldn't do Y", since they're the perfect example of primary sources, and primary sources can't really be used to interpret anything: we have to have secondary sources in order to say anything beyond that, including "Ijaz has long supported X". WP:PRIMARY, a section of the no-original-research policy page, is the basis for what I'm saying. Please remember that I'm not trying to beat you over the head by quoting policy! Meanwhile, you say that these op-eds can give a "better understanding of where religion fit in my life's work" — the only spot at which I remember this coming up is the Muslims in the USA article, and for that I think we need to rely on what others have written; of course we can use the Qur'an-burning article as part of your article to say something like "Ijaz's writings have addressed [description of the issue] specifically from an Islamic perspective", although I admit that my wording really could be improved, since what I wrote sounds like I think you're one of the radicals that you're not. Have I addressed what you're talking about? I'm not sure I understand the context well enough to give you a proper answer. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 03 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
@Nyttend: Good morning, Sir. Can we continue and/or conclude on the discussion above? Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: For convenience, I am setting forth the paragraph once more to which the above discussion belongs since it's been a few days that we've looked at this. I fundamentally understand all the points you are making, but wanted to see if there was some middle ground (for example including the first sentence of the paragraph below at the end of the Professional life section to indicate involvement in charitable activities, or to mention that my wife and I are Goodwill Ambassadors for Children of Peace followed by the first sentence, or something that is verifiable to Wiki standards but also includes the material to indicate involvement in those charitable matters. Thanks for your review. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 04 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I apologise for the delay; I had simply forgotten that there were any issues outstanding. Your comments at the sandbox confuse me, since we can include some of the charitable stuff; you don't have to drop it entirely. Regarding "long", unfortunately, I don't think that our sourcing standards would accept the "long" in this context when we're using this article. On one hand, it's a problem because it's essentially an opinion piece: opinion pieces, no matter who writes them, really are useful only as a source on the opinion of the writer. Even if it weren't, we need something that analyses your advocacy and traces out a pattern, saying that your advocacy through the years has basically been the same. I'm sorry, since I understand that it has been basically the same, but this is a situation in which we need the secondary source analysis in order to avoid synthesis of published material. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: Okay, we drop the issue on "long". I thought the article I provided gave that indication even if obliquely, but it's not important enough to keep writing back and forth about.--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC) @Nyttend: with regard to the charitable work proposal, I have left the paragraph above with my answers to your embedded citation remarks. Can you suggest what could be kept and what not? May I ask you to edit the paragraph as you would see it is supported by publicly available information? Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Please see my edits to your drafted in sub-section, including a proposed name change to the sub-section. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Away from Crescent's daily affairs and former political and media engagements, Ijaz has served on the College Foundation Board of Trustees at the University of Virginia,[5] and was a member of the board of directors of the Atlantic Council from 2007 until 2009.[6] Ijaz is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations,[7] and he serves on the Advisory Board of Rebuilding Afghanistan Foundation (RAF).[8] RAF raises funds for building education infrastructure and programs in Afghanistan, including the construction of schools such as Mayar Elementary School, which enrolled four hundred Wardak Province children upon opening in late 2005.[9] Ijaz and his wife, Valérie, also serve as goodwill ambassadors for a British charity, Children of Peace, that works to reconcile differences between Palestinian and Israeli youth.[10] In late 2011, while addressing a peace movement conference, the World Peace Festival, Ijaz announced an intention to donate 1% of his net worth to a Humanitarian Relief Fund that would make an effort to alleviate the root causes of poverty. In noting his belief that governments have often failed to provide relief to the poor in sufficient ways over the long-term, Ijaz reached out to other philanthropists to seek similar pledges for the proposed fund.[11]
|
User Talk 06 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Memogate Husain Haqqani was involved in Pakistan’s Memogate controversy. On 17 November 2011, American businessman Mansoor Ijaz publicly acknowledged that Haqqani was the "Pakistani diplomat" referred to in an opinion article he had published on 10 October 2011 in the Financial Times.[12] In the op-ed, Ijaz claimed a senior Pakistani diplomat had asked him to deliver a memorandum to Admiral Michael Mullen in the days following the raid by U.S. Special Forces on Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad, Pakistan hideout.[13] The memorandum asked for specific support from the Obama administration to avert a military takeover of Pakistan's civilian government, in which Haqqani was considered a close personal confidant of President Asif Ali Zardari.[14] Haqqani denied the accusations amid highly politicized press coverage of the matter, and on 22 November 2011, tendered his resignation to Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani after being summoned back to Islamabad to explain his alleged role in the affair and his prior dealings and relationship with Ijaz.[15] The contents of the memorandum generated much debate in Pakistan's armed forces and ISI, each of whose service chiefs filed affidavits with Pakistan's Supreme Court as it debated whether to launch a full-scale investigation into the matter.[16] Pakistan's opposition leader at the time, Mian Nawaz Sharif, filed petitions with the Supreme Court to launch the inquiry. On 30 December 2011, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence existed to warrant a full investigation into the "origins, purpose and credibility" of the memorandum and ordered the formation of a Judicial Commission headed by three of Pakistan's provincial chief justices.[17] Subsequent to his resignation, and in light of the pending Supreme Court investigation at the time, Haqqani was placed on Pakistan's Exit Control List, effectively barring him from leaving the country without permission.[18] He sought refuge in the presidential palace and later the Prime Minister's residence for nearly two months, citing threats to his life by extremist groups who publicly accused him of committing treason against his country.[19] Lawyers for Ijaz and Haqqani engaged in discussions about the appropriate venue of the Commission's hearings. Haqqani's camp insisted that Ijaz return to Pakistan to testify. Ijaz' legal team argued that as he was a U.S. citizen he was under no compulsion to travel to Pakistan, where he had also received threats from extremist groups. After weeks of debate, the Judicial Commission decided to conduct its hearings by remote video link from London and Haqqani's name was removed from the Exit Control List on 31 January 2012. Haqqani attended Ijaz' cross-examination in London, but refused to return to Pakistan to be examined as he had agreed to do when the Supreme Court granted his leave, once again citing threats to his life.[20] In June 2012, the Judicial Commission released a report concluding that the memorandum was authentic and that Haqqani was its "originator and architect".[21]: 119 The report said the former ambassador "orchestrated the possibility of an imminent coup to both persuade Mr. Ijaz to convey the message and also to give [the Memorandum] traction and credibility".[21]: 108 The justices further found that Haqqani was not loyal to Pakistan and had sought to undermine the security of the country's nuclear assets, its armed forces, intelligence services and the Constitution. The Commission exonerated President Zardari from having any prior knowledge of Haqqani's actions and noted that the justices were of the "considered view" that Haqqani had led Ijaz to believe the memorandum had the Pakistani president's approval.[22] Haqqani criticized the Commission's report as one-sided, consistently defending his patriotism,[23] and has thus far refused to return to Pakistan under his still standing commitment with the Supreme Court to face the Commission's findings.[24] He continues to maintain his innocence, and has found significant media and academic support in the United States for his pleas.[25] References
Discussion - Haqqani article Memogate section re-write @Mansoor Ijaz: This is looking better but we need all the references! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog:
(unindenting) @Nyttend: Using your logic, then we should also quote more extensively from the Commission's report in article Mansoor Ijaz and article Husain Haqqani because that is where the underlying findings that lead to the potential charges of treason come from. There are at least half a dozen more key statements that should be really included in the findings of the Commission report that would then balance out such a large quote of a single source article. Shall I quote those in the Sandbox for consideration?--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 09 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
(WP:CHECKWIKI error fix #26. Convert HTML to wikicode. Do general fixes and cleanup if needed. - using AWB (10072)) Disambiguation link notification for April 9 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timothy M. Carney, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbia and Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Moved this Discussion section to talk from Sandbox --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Discussion of Timothy M. Carney article redevelopment
|
User Talk 14 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I'm sorry, but I'm crazily busy, and I don't think I'll be able to help here. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Good article nominations editTo get feedback on the Robin Raphel article, you may want to submit a request at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:GAN nominations editPlease follow the instructions at WP:GAN so that the bot does not undo your nominations like it just did.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 17 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I'm sorry that I've been so busy. If you have anything comparatively simple with which I can help, either tonight (9:45PM here now) or tomorrow evening, please let me know. I'm on the road from Friday noon until late Monday and won't have any substantial periods of Internet access during that time. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
(unindenting) @Nyttend: On the image copyright issue, I left a note at the page you suggested and asked for a day or so to obtain the proper permission slip from Olan Mills. That will be no problem -- they know our family well and in any event they have a public website policy that allows the use of the image in these types of forums, so I don't see a problem in getting that done. Would appreciate perhaps that you consider re-structuring "speedy delete" to normal mode so I can get that done in time. Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 19 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
@FreeRangeFrog: Thank you for nominating Mansoor Ijaz as a good article. I have also reached out to Olan Mills legal today on the copyright issue. They were closed but we should get that resolved shortly after Easter. They will give us what we need. In the meantime, I continue to re-develop Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz as my next project on Wiki.
@FreeRangeFrog: fixed the External Links section. That was an easy fix. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 23 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
The images in Commons have been restored :) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
|
User Talk 25 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Sandbox
|
User Talk 29 APR 2014 edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
@FreeRangeFrog: Hey Froggy, I wonder if you have a minute to stop by the Sandbox and see my cuts to the article -- I've done some radical surgery to bring it to a reasonable length and insure it is fully referenced on available data. A lot of the nuclear stuff is now cut because we just cannot document that adequately due to the sensitive nature of those disclosures. Thanks, and for the help on the image matter. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
|
- ^ "US Missed Three Chances to Seize Bin Laden". The Sunday Times. 2002-01-06. Retrieved 2014-04-08.
{{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
VF Rosewas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Carney-Ijazwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).