Talk:Nabil Gabol

Citing sources

Please do not cite sources generally e.g. by a link to the home page of the source, but provide specific links to articles that support the points reported here. I will be happy to help with formatting the citations if you leave a request here (or on my talk page). - Fayenatic (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nabil Gabol. 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/20081202224520/http://www.pas.gov.pk/uploads/downloads/former_deputy_speakers_pas.pdf to http://www.pas.gov.pk/uploads/downloads/former_deputy_speakers_pas.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203011939/http://topics.onepakistan.com.pk/nabil-gabol/ to http://topics.onepakistan.com.pk/nabil-gabol/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022224910/http://awaz.co/profile_Sardar-Nabil-Ahmad-Khan-Gabol_54.aspx to http://awaz.co/profile_Sardar-Nabil-Ahmad-Khan-Gabol_54.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nabil Gabol PK.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the page has been locked...

... I invite you Balochworld for a discussion. Instead of calling me biased, can you please raise your concerns here? --Saqib (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

... You are clearly biased Saqib because you intentionally include redundant facts such as the 1990 "only" 24 votes. It is a shame that you claim to be a contributor for political leaders' pages because you have no basic understanding of the field. Do you seriously think Nabil Gabol contested this election and got "only" 24 votes. My friend the way things work is a politician commonly submits nomination papers from more than one constituency as a covering candidate. You cannot mention this a an election loss or "unsuccessful" candidature. This gives the reader a biased view. Further you deleted the entire category on his education. He is a famous St. Patricks alumni and I gave reference to this fact. Also from several television reports on his life (more than a dozen) I mentioned the fact that he is an avid hunter and a licensed pilot. Again you maliciously deleted the entire category. About him resigning from the MQM I gave the reason with DAWN newspaper reference that it was due to his belief that the election was rigged. Again, you removed this. You, Mr. Saqib are clearly biased against this individual and are not suitable to contribute on him further. You choose to only include negative things about him. Where did the fact about him being applauded in the Illinois State Assembly go. What about him inaugurating Gwadar port in 2008 (with DAWN newspaper reference). Kindly stick to articles about Imran Khan and the youthia leaders. Thank you. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochworld (talk • contribs)

@Balochworld: First-off, If you want me to help you, you can talk to me in a civil manner. Otherwise I'm off. It's ironic you calling me biased, yet it is you who made no contributions outside this topic. You're clearly a SPA. OK he may probably had contested the 1990 election as a covering candidate but for the sake of NPOV, it should be mentioned. After all the information is properly sourced via a RS. The reason why I removed the entire education section is because the information was not sourced via RS. And for the same reasons I removed the personal life section. For your information, Sindhidunya.com, Awaztoday.pk or a Blogspot-hosted webpage are not considered RS and therefore we avoid their usage in our BLPs. I don't see you cited a reliable source to support the notion that he quit MQM "due to his belief that the election was rigged." I would suggest you to stop bashing me because it is not going to help you. I encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about WP:BLP. --Saqib (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: I do not need your help. It is you who needs a basic understanding of how Pakistani politics works. The page as fine before you started meddling with it. I know for a fact that he went to St. Pats for school and that he is a licensed pilot. Now just because you feel like Sindhidunya.com is not a reliable reference I cannot go to Civil Aviation Authority and get a copy of his license for satisfaction. I just need one favor from you. Revert the page to how it was before you stuck your biased nose into it and please get a life and a real job. Thank you. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochworld (talk • contribs)

@Balochworld: You cannot add something solely because you believe it is true, nor you can delete anything you believe to be untrue. Everything must be verified beforehand with a reliable source. I'm not going to revert the article back. --Saqib (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: If you keep on abusing other editors you won't have a say at all on how this article looks, because you'll be blocked. You've already been blocked once for edit-warring, I expect that the 46.x.x.x IP that I blocked was also you, and so you're treading on really thin ice here. I'd stop it and start to engage collaboratively. That's your last warning. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: How is saying "please" and "thank you" abusive? All I am saying is that the article was in a stable state for 10 years since 2008. Saqib decided that he did not like the person the article is about and completely transformed it removing two entire categories. Everything was referenced and several other editors collaborated it and improved it over the past several years. My suggestion is revert it back to the 19th June STABLE version by GorgeCustersSabre and if Mr. Saqib here has any issues with THAT STABLE VERSION (that existed for 10 years) then I can literally go and dig up stuff like certified copies of the person's university degree and pilot's license so Mr Saqib can have a better night's sleep. I tried to be collaborative and made improvements to Saqib's version along with references but he simply reverts the entire thing without exception. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochworld (talk • contribs)

@Balochworld: Because you've been guarding the page for the last one decade does not means you own the page and can write it as you like. The BLP was in very inferior shape and it had to be fixed. I suggest Black Kite to compare the current version with that of the User:Balochworld and give his 2 cents. --Saqib (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: yes please do look at the 19th June Version before Saqib totally deleted entire categories and started maligning the subject individual negatively. I aleady discussed with Saqib that the 1990 election clearly was a matter of the individual filing nomination papers as a covering candidate so by claiming that the individual got "only" 24 votes and lost the election might be factually correct but misleading and incomplete. I included positive facts like his visit to the Illinois state assembly and inaugurating Gwadar port (along with relevant references) but since these are positive things, Mr. Saqib removed them. Signs of clear bias! I suspect Mr. Saqib has a personal grudge and most likely supports an opposing political party.--

@Black Kite: dear I'm still waiting for your response. But just to strengthen my argument I am giving the following examples:

1. Inauguration of Gwadar Port. Ref https://www.dawn.com/news/335336

2. Visit to Illinois State Assembly: On his official trip to the United States, he was welcomed to the Illinois House of Representatives as a man "noted for his conciliatory approach to regional and organizational conflicts" Ref: http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans90/t042997.pdf

Every time I tried to add these Saqib would just revert it. Again I am requesting to take the article back to the stable for as of 19th June and we can collaborate from there. Thank you. Balochworld (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one to be discussing the content with; that would be @Saqib:. My only function here is to prevent edit-warring and other disruption. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I checked out the article history and I can say that Saqib has done a very good job with the article. He has improved the article from poorly sourced POV mess to a reliably sourced NPOV article. Going back to Balochworld's version would be a disaster. Furthermore, they were reverted by several editors in addition to Saqib and they should accept the editorial concensus against them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

ok cool. Can anyone answer the two points I raised above? Anything wrong with the reference? @SheriffIsInTown: Balochworld (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: We do not add each and everything for which we find a source for, please see WP:NOTNEWS. We need to gauge the encyclopedic value of the content. He was just an attendee in Gwadar port opening ceremony. Let me give you an example, do you know how many notables having a Wikipedia page attended Khan's oath taking ceremony, would we add that to all of their articles? In a similar fashion the praise from Illinois House of Representatives are the diplomatic words and they have no encyclopedic value. How many leaders praise each other when they meet? Should we start including all that on all articles of those leaders? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Just an attendee? My friend he was THE minister for ports and shjipping. Hence it was HE who inaugurated it. How can you say that a Global port opening like Gwadar (CPEC) has no encyclopedic value? At the same time his 1990 nomination papers as a covering candidate (not serious) getting "only" 24 votes has encyclopedic value? You and Saqib are not being collaborative at all.Balochworld (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: But the article on Gwadar Port says it was inaugurated by Parvez Musharraf. The Dawn news story you provided above does not appear to verify your fallacious claims. --Saqib (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: Great Job identifying that. I am sure you will update the Gwadar Port article to mention Nabil Gabol and demonstrate that you are in fact un-biased. I also hope you understand that Nabil Gabol's visit to Illinois state assembly was an official one which is an honor for a Pakistani politcian and you will update that as well. I am further confident now that the 1990 election "only" 24 votes fact that you mentioned will be removed because you understand that was inconsequential because clearly he did not contest that election. Thank you. Balochworld (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: Not really. I'm fine with the current version. --Saqib (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: and since you are an authority on such topics/pages please let me know how it was possible that in 1997 Nabil Gabol contested as a PPP candidate for MPA seat BUT at the same time was an independent against his own party getting only 76 votes hence, as you mentioned, lost the election

@SheriffIsInTown: filing nomination papers as a covering candidate has great encyclopedic value and is not misleading at all. Great job guys!! @BlackKite: please review Saqibs last comment, he is fine with the current version. So what Saqib wants is final? Balochworld (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is you who exhibiting ownership of this article, not me. Everything is properly sourced so why don't you check the inline citations? --Saqib (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not challenging the citations. All I am saying is that you are misleading the reader by including facts such as that he was a PPP candidate for MPA and also an independent candidate at the same time for MNA and losing to his own party.Balochworld (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears he wasn't awarded PPP ticket for the NA seat. --Saqib (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears you are not familiar with the concept of a covering candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochworld (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless you provide a RS which explicitly states he was contesting the election as a covering candidate, we cannot go with you claims. --Saqib (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

As much as I am aware of the election process, Balochworld's claim about covering candidature is right. Covering candidates who are lazy enough not to withdraw their names by the deadline are listed Independent on the ballot paper and inconsequentially get votes by some folks. Since the sources used are the results listing number of votes from Election Commission of Pakistan and not independent secondary sources confirming the statements, I am in favor of removing the part about him getting 76 votes for MNA seat and keep the MPA part where he got over 11,000 votes in the same election, we cannot make damning statements by just relying on WP:PRIMARY.

As far as the part about Gwadar port and diplomatic praise is concerned, I stand by my opinion expressed previously! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC

He may had contested that election as a covering candidate but who knows for sure? Guess we need to see some evidence in the form of a RS. --Saqib (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, when the doubts have been expressed regarding something negative about a BLP and there is a logic behind those doubts and when we only have a primary source which lists votes without confirming the statements and when there is no possibility for finding a source for an old election in which BLP was a covering candidate. A major newpaper would be considered crazy enough to cover an insignificant matter such as Gabol's covering candidature in an election which happened 21 years ago and an election which happened 28 years ago so yes there are doubts and I am in favor of removing that 1997 election part about him getting 76 votes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not something negative or libel. It is factually correct information. Your argument make sense, but guess it would set bad precedent. It will allow anyone to remove the passages from those hundreds of BLPs on Pakistani MPs claiming the MP had contested the election as a covering candidate - a clear cut breach of WP:NOTTRUTH. --Saqib (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if the candidate was listed as an independent candidate on an MNA seat 21 years ago but was listed a party candidate on MPA seat and got nominal votes on a constituency which is way bigger than the constituency where he got thousands of votes. It is just against common sense for a party to file a candidate on one constituency whereas the same candidate is contesting election against that party's candidate on another constituency. If all these conditions meet for other MPs then I will say remove that as well. We Wikipedians should not act like robots, we can use human judgement and common sense. (Please do not take this comment personally against you, I am making a generalized statement, myself included in it) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Yes, common sense should prevail but I fear this may set a bad example because Balochworld also asked above to remove the passage about 1990 election, claiming Gabol contested in that election as a covering candidate. --Saqib (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

1990 is different as he contested in 1988 as IJI candidate and in 1993 as PPP so it is quite a possibility that between switching parties, he might have contested one election as an independent. @Balochworld: Do you know whose covering candidate Gabol was in 1990? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I checked the source, it just says Mr. Nabil as the candidate name so we are not sure who that Mr. Nabil was. Karachi has many Nabils. We can give him a benefit of doubt and remove 1990 as well! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if xe says Abdul Khalique of PDA. --Saqib (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Thank you for responding and showing some common sense! This was my whole point to begin with. I did not like the fact that Saqib completely changed the article in one sitting and that too like an automated robot. Even if you look at the NA-258 result from 2013 that Saqib has mentioned it is not Nabil Gabol but another person "Ahmed Gabol." My whole point was to collaborate. Meet somewhere in the middle and not just include negative, misleading and incomplete facts. Thank you. Balochworld (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I've no issue removing the part related to Constituency NA-258. It wasn't intentional. And I'm willing to let the NA-189 passage go off as well - even though I still have some concerns. But I object the removal of part related to 1990 election. OK the name isn't complete but I think we should use common sense because there was no other Nabil contesting from Karachi between 1988 and 1997 other than this Nabil Gabol. The ECP has a repute of printing incomplete and sometimes inaccurate names of the candidates. --Saqib (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There is enough doubt around the 1990 "Mr Nabil" and the right thing to do is remove it. Balochworld (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: I agree that ECP makes a lot of mistakes in printing but being this a BLP, where is the source which 100 percent verifies that, that Mr. Nabil was this Nabil Gabol, furthermore some constituencies have over 30 candidates at times and a lot of them being unknown independents, we cannot say for sure that Mr. Nabil who got 24 votes is Nabil Gabol. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Also the reference Saqib gave about the NAB inquiry is incomplete and raises more confusion than any encyclopedic value. Nabil Gabols name is part of a dozen people mentioned in the inquiry and it is not clear what the outcome of the inquiry is. I believe if a BLP is convicted or jailed then it might have encyclopedic value but how is a mere inquiry (routine matter in Pakistan politics) and that too without any result worth mentioning on a BLP. I believe it just misleads the reader. Balochworld (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Step by step

Balochworld, now that you (hopefully) realize that the article won't be reverted to your preferred version, let's go through it step by step. Could you please write down, clearly, what changes you want to be made, and what sources you have for those. byteflush _Talk 04:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

1. As seconded by Sheriff, the 1990, 1997 election should be removed. Also the NA258(2013) because it is about some other person.

2. The NAB inquiry is not worth including because it is simply an inquiry and that too about a dozen people not specifically Nabil Gabol. Also I know that the inquiry is closed without any conviction but even if you don't take my word for it a mere inquiry is a routine matter and has no encyclopedic value. The burden of proof is in saqib to show that the inquiry resulted in any meaningful outcome/ conviction related to the subject individual i.e Nabil Gabol.

3. Credit for Inauguration of Gwadar Port, official ( reference is given in the discussion above).

4. Official visit to illinois state assembly and the praise received (ref. Above).

5. Remove the statement about Mr Gabol being named in Murder. It is a mere accusation, a common political stunt in Pakistan. No where does it say that he was formally charged or anything of any serious nature. I see no point in this being included in a BLP. It might be no big deal for Saqib but it is damaging to the BLP.

Balochworld (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with number 1, I do not agree with number 2 so we should keep that as is, I am undecided about number 3 as I think unloading of containers is insignificant but I might be okay including it in favor of resolving the dispute as "In absence of then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Yousuf Raza Gillani, Gabol alongside with Aslam Raisani inaugurated the unloading of containers from a ship at Gwadar Port" , I am not in favor of number 4, it being insignificant diplomatic praise or empty words which I call "baloneys", and we should change the text identified in number 5 from "He was named in murder" to "He was accused of murder". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

About number 2. A NAB inquiry is insignificant and a routine matter. If the inquiry resulted in conviction or anything of substance it would have had encyclopedic value. It's from 2016 and there is no word on it.

Same thing with the murder accusation. It's from a few years ago and was just a a mere accusation no formal charges or follow. 0 encyclopedic value. Balochworld (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Both are as per the sources, let us know when he is acquitted of both supported by reliable sources and we will change accordingly. At this point, the article does not imply that he is convicted of both. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly my point! He can not be acquitted because he was never charged!!! There was no legal proceeding no court hearing. This adds no value to the article or the reader.Balochworld (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: Take some time to read this interesting piece; WP:NOTTRUTH. --Saqib (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: A former minister being accused of a murder and misuse of authority which became costly to exchequer has an encyclopedic value. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Conviction, sentence or court punishment is of value and should be mentioned. Accusation? I can accuse Imran Khan of murder or Rape tomorrow morning. It is a routine matter in Pakistan politics.Balochworld (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: We are not talking about you or me accusing someone, we are talking about what is in the sources which we consider reliable. Consider this discussion at standstill and drop the stick, I will put in an edit protected request to make agreed upon changes and that's about it, for which we do not have consensus, we do not have consensus. You requested opinion of an editor other than Saqib at WP:ANI and you got it so please now agree to that! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: I just gave the above argument as an example to illustrate the significance of a mere accusation. It just creates disambiguation and unnecessary question mark on the BLP. For example Imran Khan is accused of misusing official govt helicopter but it is not mentioned on his BLP. If you were to include MERE accusations on any politician then it's a Pandoras box that has no end. Politicians are accused of thousands of things during their career. What is mentioned in their BLP is things like jail term, court trial. Hope you understand. Balochworld (talk)

I also suggest to add the following passage for the sake of NPOV: In August 2015, the Karachi-South DIG and a gang commander accused Gabol of creating disturbance and unrest in Lyari with the help of criminals. PPP parliamentarians also accused Gabol behind the Lyari unrest in April 2014. --Saqib (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: If you were to add the passage related to Gwadar Port inauguration, I would suggest something along the lines of "In December 2008, the Gwadar Port was inaugurated for the fourth times. Gabol alongside Aslam Raisani performed the inauguration ceremony". --Saqib (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I accuse User:saqib of being biased and on a mission to defame Nabil Gabol. Please mention that somewhere as well. Balochworld (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't be upset. See WP:PROUD which says NPOV policy will ensure that both the good and the bad about the subject will be told, and that whitewashing is not allowed. --Saqib (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You still don't get the point. I'm not whitewashing. I'm just signifying the importance of accusations which have no limits. Start by going to imran Khan's page and mentioning that he is accused of being a Zionist puppet, army's blue eyed boy, misusing government helicopter, heavy cocaine user, bisexual etc.

Balochworld (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Guess you've not yet read Imran_Khan#Personal_life. --Saqib (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: I advise against inclusion of new additions proposed by you because of these just being political accusations. Furthermore, the text I proposed regarding inauguration of Gwadar Port does not state that they inaugurated the port. I will have to see previous three inauguration to make a distinction between all four. Can you point me to the sources for previous three inaugurations? Apparently, they inaugurate different aspects of the port every other day! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Policy on WP:BLP clearly says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". Three different parties (including elected parliamentarians and a senior police officer) on three different occasions accused Gabol of the same thing - Unrest in Lyari. Gabol was MNA from Lyari so these allegations besides well sourced, are very much relevant and noteworthy. WP:NPOV requires including them in the BLP. --Saqib (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure Saqib go ahead and do as you please. But do complete the accusations:

" A NAB inquiry was launched against Nabil Gabol along with several other individuals over 2 years ago. However the progress or status of the inquiry remains unknown."

2. "Zafar Baloch's (gangster) father accused Nabil Gabol of his sons murder 3 years ago. However if/whether the authorities have taken the accusation seriously and launched a formal investigation remains unknown."  ::::::Balochworld (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: No. I'm not going to add or even support proposed original research. The news stories does not support your claims. --Saqib (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Original research? Fact: you do not know the status and or progress of the NAB inquiry. Also fact: you do not know if the murder accusation resulted in actual Police investigation. I guess you like mystery and to keep the audience guessing.

Balochworld (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You cannot just made up anything you like. Everything must be verifiable before you can add it. --Saqib (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok so you are saying that you know the status of the NAB inquiry? And also the Murder charges?

Balochworld (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry not murder charges...I mean the accusation. Lol.

Balochworld (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

And FYI go to NAB.gov.pk you will also be educated in the difference between a NAB inquiry and a proper NAB investigation. Inquiries happen routinely for almost every government official in the several thousands. Investigation on the other hand is something serious that is usually communicated by NAB as a official PRESS Release. My friend stop being stubborn and be the bigger person. You and I both know that this article has been made controversial because you literally feel like every negative newspaper report should be mentioned.  :Balochworld (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: OR is not permitted at any case. The news reports are relevant and belongs in the article. You was warned by @Swarm: and @Doug Weller: for name calling so instead of calling me stubborn and biased, I think you just need to relax and let it go. --Saqib (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and include it but do a favor to the reader and give complete information that there is no news or update on the inquiry or the accusation. Because the way you are putting it the readers for the next 20 Years will be kept guessing whether the inquiry or the accusation resulted in any meaningful outcome.

Balochworld (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: We are not going to remove the murder accusation and NAB inquiry, consider the chapter closed, you do not have consensus.

@Saqib: You can go ahead with your proposed additions if you think they are appropriate. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: Don't expect favors from me. I'm not going to add anything unless provided with a RS. @SheriffIsInTown: Sure I will add it myself once the page protection expires. --Saqib (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: "A Joint Investigation Team (JIT) comprising representatives of police, Rangers and intelligence agencies was constituted to probe Zafar’s murder. Sources privy to the matter told The Express Tribune that the representatives of the JIT did not find any evidence against Gabol." Dont forget to add this @Saqib: @SheriffIsInTown:Balochworld (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Sure. By the way I also found a few news stories about Saqib’s murder. --Saqib (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Byteflush: and @Black kite: I'm trying to move forward and fix contentious matrerial about BLP but there is no discussion/progress being made. Please help. Balochworld (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: I sincerely apologize, I started this thread but right now I don't have enough time to go over all of this. Didn't know this week would be this mad. =\ However, don't wait for me, if everyone else reaches consensus, it's fine. If not, I'll have more time during the weekend. byteflush _Talk 00:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Byteflush: @Ivanvector: {ping|Black Kite}} Saqib is initiating another edit war by adding material that was not agreed upon and including unreliable sources. Please help

I'm reverting your edits because you're removing sourced material. Each and every source cited is a RS. I suggest we discuss here instead of edit warring each other. --Saqib (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan Today is not an RS. Plus you have made the article controversial by adding contentious material and accusations. I agree, discuss here before restarting the edit war. Keep the article objective in the meanwhile i.e free from accusations. Balochworld (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Why you think Pakistan Today is not a RS? You need to understand that Wikipedia seeks neutrality and it will report both the good and the bad about a person from verifiable and reliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

it is not a major newspaper like DAWN or Express Tribune. It is a tabloid. I am not against neutrality but you are compromising it by misleading titles such as "criminal activities." Accusations cannot be considered as "criminal activities. Also you do not have consensus. The things you added were never discussed. Balochworld (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 August 2018

Please remove following text from "Political career" section as agreed upon above:

"He ran for the seat of the Provincial Assembly of Sindh as an independent candidate from Constituency PS-85 (Karachi South-I) in Pakistani general election, 1990 but was unsuccessful. He received only 24 votes and lost the seat to Abdul Khalique, a candidate of Pakistan Democratic Alliance (PDA).<ref name="pas/88-97" />"

"In the same election, he also ran for the seat of the National Assembly of Pakistan as an independent candidate from Constituency NA-189 (Karachi South-I) but was unsuccessful. He received only 76 votes and lost the seat to Waja Ahmed Karim Dad, a candidate of PPP." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Per discussion above, also needs to switch from In the same election he also ran for the seat of the National Assembly as a candidate of MQM from Constituency NA-248 (Karachi-X) and from Constituency NA-258 (Karachi-XX) but was unsuccessful and lost both seats to In the same election he also ran for the seat of the National Assembly as a candidate of MQM from Constituency NA-248 (Karachi-X) but was unsuccessful. He received 6,489 votes and lost the seat to Shah Jahan Baloch. --Saqib (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Question: which is it? Remove the "in the same election" sentence as SheriffIsInTown requests, or update it with what Saqib proposed? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Sorry for the confusion, these are three different sentences for three different elections. All needs to be done. Two sentences need to be removed and one needs to be updated. First one is for 1990 election, second for 1997 and third for 2013. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok,  Done. Thanks for clarifying. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please change: "In September 2013, Gabol was named in the murder of Zafar Baloch, leader of Peoples' Aman Committee."

TO

"In September 2013, Gabol was one of several accused in the murder of Zafar Baloch leader of Peoples' Aman Committee, a banned terrorist group." However, as reported by sources privy to the subsequent investigation, a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) comprising representatives of police, Rangers and intelligence agencies constituted to probe Zafar’s murder did not find any evidence against Gabol. Balochworld (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The text you added is not a consensus version. --Saqib (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

After several days and in depth discussion we seem to be in WP:NOCONSENSUS As per policy the material in contentious about s living person. Hence, please remove: "In September 2013, Gabol was named in the murder of Zafar Baloch, leader of Peoples' Aman Committee." Thank you Balochworld (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Relax. There's no consensus. --Saqib (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:BLPREMOVE is about material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced". I don't believe this the case here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Murder accusation

"In September 2013, Gabol was named in the murder of Zafar Baloch leader of Peoples' Aman Committee." Here "named" needs to be changed to accused. Followed by: "However a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) comprising representatives of police, Rangers and intelligence agencies constituted to probe Zafar’s murder did not find any evidence against Gabol." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochworld (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: Again OR. Will you please stop doing that? The news story says "Sources privy to the matter told The Express Tribune that the representatives of the JIT did not find any evidence against Gabol." And "Meanwhile, Friends of Lyari chairperson Habib Jan Baloch rejected the findings of the JIT" saying "has no credibility". --Saqib (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course they would reject the JIT. Don't you know how politics works one party accuses the other refutes. This is exactly why I told you to not include accusiations. Because that way it would never end. Balochworld (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In light of the source provided by Balochworld which says that a JIT exonerated Gabol from murder charges, I can accept following three options, I do not have any preference out of these three options, both of you please let me know which one you prefer and the reasons why and I might go for one of them, here are the options which I can accept and possible reasons why:

• Option 1: Remove mention of murder as an official JIT concluded that there was no evidence against Gabol
• Option 2: Change the existing text from "named" to "accused" and include the JIT findings leaving victim's father's declination out as those does not have any value when we have an official conclusion
• Option 3: Present complete picture, change the text from "named" to "accused", add JIT findings and victim's father's declination Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I would go with option 3 because WP is not censored. --Saqib (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

With above edit request out of the way, I am ok to go with option 3 as well. @Saqib: Please come up with proposed text for this! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Something along the lines of: In September 2013, Gabol was accused in the murder of Zafar Baloch, a leader of Peoples' Aman Committee. Subsequently a police case was registered against Gabol. The Express Tribune reported that during the course of investigation, sources disclosed that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) which was constituted to investigate the murder of Zafar Baloch did not find any conclusive proof of Gabol's involvement in the killing. Habib Jan Baloch, chairperson Friends of Lyari, rejected the result of the JIT investigation saying “The JIT has no credibility". --Saqib (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 1 is the best and even though Saqib may enjoy controversy I'm sure @SheriffIsInTown: will agree that since it was merely an accusation and eventually there WAS NO EVIDENCE against Gabol it is best to merely set it aside and focus on less controversial things about the BLP. It was a mere accusation based on politics and if you include this as a precedent then all hell will break loose on other BLPs as there is never any shortage of political accusationsBalochworld (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: I agree with the text, let's go for the change! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Why ask me if you were going to completely ignore my suggestion. I don't understand why Saqib seems to single out Gabol by saying a murder case was registered against him. The newspaper report clearly says there the case was registered against 4 other suspects. Further, the MQM said that the case was politically motivated. Also, who is Habib Jan, how is he linked with the murder investigation? I don't see why mentioning him here is so important. Balochworld (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Balochworld: I already made up my mind. Saqib's proposed text is very balanced and he gave a good reason that we do not censor. You could not give justifiable reason. I must make a choice to get this dispute resolved and I made the one which is more in line with the policies. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC) @SheriffIsInTown: ok but being balanced means that you mention that other people were also Nominated in the case and not make it look like it was only Gabol. Also, like I suggested previously, if you clearly mention that the JIT included police, rangers AND intelligence agencies then the reader will know that the JIT was balanced so Habib Jan's (known criminal and absconder of Lyari) statement will be brushed aside. (Again I don't see why mentioning habib Jan is important here). Balochworld (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A more balanced account would be: "In September 2013, Gabol was one of several accused in the murder of Zafar Baloch leader of Peoples' Aman Committee, a banned terrorist group." However, as reported by sources privy to the subsequent investigation, a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) comprising representatives of police, Rangers and intelligence agencies constituted to probe Zafar’s murder did not find any evidence against Gabol." Balochworld (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Dear all. What seems to be the issue with my proposal. Kindly move ahead so we may close this issue. Thanks. Balochworld (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism by Saqib

Saqib is constantly making the page controversial by adding contentious material. He has made the page unstable. I request administrators to look into his activities. Balochworld (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If anyone is being disruptive here, it's yourself,. You're clearly trying to own the page by removing the information backed by reputable reliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You added a category that was never discussed. Further you added contentious material and not backed by consensus. @Byteflush: @Ivanvector: Balochworld (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Which category? Care to tell? --Saqib (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"Criminal Activities" Was never discussed. As soon as the protection ended you went ahead and catered to your personal agenda. What was the purpose of discussions by several editors if you wanted to do your own bidding? Balochworld (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note - both edit warriors blocked. You've been doing this for over a month, after having forced the page to be protected, and after having already been blocked. The next time will be indefinite, for both of you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Contentious material

about accusation and an assault-- should they not be removed? If these are allegations and there are no convictions, I believe they give undue negative weight, are salacious, and should be removed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC) @Ivanvector: your thoughts?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably everything that's going on here should be agreed on by consensus before anything gets added to the article. You could be right that these allegations give undue weight, and we have to consider WP:BLPCRIME, and I have no idea about "salacious" as I'm not familiar with the sources, but I don't agree that this material qualifies for WP:3RRNO. I opened a discussion at ANI about the edit warring and the blocks, as Saqib pointed out to me that it's come up before. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Given that the murder allegations are five years old, and that he was never arrested, tried or convicted, I have removed the allegations as a BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Following was the text I agreed to which was proposed by Saqib. Thus, as per consensus, this was supposed to be added into the article in place of the line you removed. I objected to the existing wording as "named in the murder” more sounded like he was convicted so I suggested to change the wording to " accused of murder" and then add the findings of Joint Investigation Team and rejection of the findings to make it more balanced and NPOV but after I stopped following this conversation, I am not sure what happened and why things went wayward. So, if you agree, I would like to add the following in place of the line you removed: In September 2013, Gabol was accused in the murder of Zafar Baloch, a leader of Peoples' Aman Committee. Subsequently a police case was registered against Gabol. The Express Tribune reported that during the course of investigation, sources disclosed that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) which was constituted to investigate the murder of Zafar Baloch did not find any conclusive proof of Gabol's involvement in the killing. Habib Jan Baloch, chairperson Friends of Lyari, rejected the result of the JIT investigation saying “The JIT has no credibility". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, I do not believe that this content belongs in this article, because it devotes undue weight to an unproven allegation of the worst possible kind of criminal behavior. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is no solid evidence, at least that I can find. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am a new editor but a very old and loyal wikipedia reader. I have been following this article for a month and it is a shame that wikipedia is being used as a means to vent out personal agendas. I happen to belong from Karachi and am a political buff. The kind of information shared on this BLP is extremely contentious and I would laugh if the accusations were not of such a serious nature. I am glad that finally some senior admins and editors have now taken interest. Finally there is some sense. How could one include allegations and accusations such as MURDER without any documented trial or conviction? We must realize that we are talking about a REAL HUMAN BEING and such negative propaganda is quite damaging for anyone and has far reaching consequences. Wikipedia should not be used for accusations because in Pakistani politics insane allegations such as rape, murder and even terrorism are flaunted against polictical personalities regularly. In the West these things are properly documented and can be included but, that is not the case in a country like Pakistan or even India for that matter. I suggest that this article be kept concise and objective. All accusations and allegations in this BLP should be removed. Be it murder accusations or even the alleged NAB inquiry which is also a big question mark. Not only is the alleged inquiry several years old also a detailed search shows that there is no follow up on the supposed inquiry. Further, according to the cited source the inquiry was not solely against the subject i.e. (it includes several other government officials) but also if the inquiry was actually official it would have been mentioned on the NAB website which is not the case here. Thank you. Mrpaki5 (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I see you rightfully blocked User:Nabil Gabol 2 and User:Faithfullguy, I believe above user falls under same category of users as those two. Would you be willing to take care of them as well? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done, no opinion on whether what they are talking about makes sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's possible we're reviewing different revisions. Cullen328, just in case you didn't notice the timeline, when I blocked the two editors I reverted to a revision before either of them had added to the article. I think that SheriffIsInTown is commenting on this revision as "Saqib's version", which contains more detail on the criminal allegations. I reverted to a revision before these additions. There's a BLPCRIME bent worth discussing in both revisions, but I think it would be good to make sure we're all starting from the same base. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion of all of that garbage, Ivanvector. Has he been convicted of any of this? No. Current in-depth articles about him do not even mention those old unproven allegations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I relied on WP:WELLKNOWN when I supported the inclusion as it states If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. What policy are you relying at to oppose the inclusion? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, WP:BLP states "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I consider these old and unproven allegations to be "titillating claims" and because the press in Pakistan is not even discussing the allegations these days although he is still very much in the news, Wikipedia becomes the "primary vehicle" for spreading these allegations if this content stays in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be worth putting this matter to an RfC, due to the disagreement about which parts of BLP take precedence. I'll add: WP:BLPCRIME suggests that we should not include criminal allegations without a documented conviction, but the section indicates that it's only meant to apply for "individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN." I don't know if a member of the Pakistani National Assembly and Minister of State qualifies as well-known. Assuming he does: the allegations seem to be a reasonably significant factor of his political career, are mentioned in multiple contemporary reliable sources, and should be mentioned for context. Assuming he does not: the allegations are unproven and apparently have not been tried in court, and should be excluded. But I don't know which one it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: While I agree that these are serious allegations, but are well sourced and was reported by multiple reputable Pakistani English language newspapers. A police case was registered against Gabol after the victims father directly accused Gabol for the murder of his son, as per news stories published in reputable Dawn, The Express Tribune, The News International and several others. For what it's worth, the victim (Zafar Baloch) was affiliated with political party (PPP) - an arch-rival of MQM (Nabil Gabol was an MP of MQM at the time of the killing). The murder took place in the vicinity of Lyari Town where Gabol was an MP since 1988. The victim was a known figure who once resigned from a position due to his differences with Gabol as per a profile on Zafar Baloch in DAWN newspaper). For some reason, the victim once also demanded action against Gabol as per this opinion piece by Mazhar Abbas in the Express Tribune. As per a news story in The News, Victims father claimed that "Three days before Zafar’s murder, Nabil Gabol had told the media that the people of Lyari would soon hear some good news. I believe he was talking about the killing of my son". So this all indicates that there was some indeed clash between the Zafar Baloch and the subject of this BLP. I also found this research by European Consortium for Political Research which discusses the hostile connection between Gabol and the victim in quite detail. IMO, the murder was noteworthy, well-documented and very much relevant here therefore belongs in this BLP.

Later in 2014, several MPs affiliated with PPP also accused Gabol behind the unrest in Lyari Town. In 2015, a senior law enforcement officer and a gang commander also accused Gabol of creating unrest in Lyari Town with the help of gangsters. Interestingly, Gabol would later re-join PPP (the same party, whose MPs accused Gabol behind the unrest in Lyari). I also found an interesting news story from The Nation dated 2011 where people of Lyari held demonstration against Gabol for his alleged role behind the criminal activities it in the town.

@Ivanvector: I think public figures = public officials. Gabol was an MP since 1988, once served as deputy speaker of a provincial legislature and was part of the federal cabinet so indeed a public figure. I too suggest to open an RfC and would accept the outcome. --Saqib (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: We already had consensus to include murder allegations. This was discussed in above thread and we took it as a consensus as myself and Saqib agreed to include that. Saqib was only trying to maintain that consensus against Balochworld's attempts to remove content against consensus as removed parts included content which was agreed upon. Since there was consensus to include thus we should include that part, we can take Cullen328's disagreement as one editor's disagreement. That has no bearing on already achieved consensus unless there are many more editors opposing that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

No, that's quite incorrect. You didn't have consensus, you had an editorial disagreement with two editors taking one side and another taking a different side, and you and Saqib just ignored what Balochworld was trying to say and implemented your proposal anyway. Now there are several editors here and at the ANI thread that I opened saying you were wrong to have done that. Balochworld has good-faith concerns about your proposed content. When you could not agree, you should have sought more opinions; as I've said to Saqib, there are many ways available to do just that. Please drop the idea that you "had consensus", you clearly did not, and regardless you do not now. Arguing that you have consensus when you clearly don't is a form of tendentious editing.

@Everyone: for some reason I'm receiving these notifications for every ping on this page. I'm following the discussion, please don't ping me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Since this is something controversial, I better should had seeked community consensus on a wider scale. Anyways, RFC is in progress now. --Saqib (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment of Ivanvector, when two editors disagree then third opinion can dictate consensus towards one side. That is why we seek third opinion. That is if no fourth editor is participating in the discussion. The onus was not on me or Saqib to go fetch more editors to give their opinion but was on Balochworld to do so as opinion was going against them so instead of keep reverting Saqib, they should have tried other forums if they did not like consensus against them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

So your idea of consensus is "it's two against one, so we don't have to listen to you"? I suggest you actually read WP:CONSENSUS, which contains in its intro "Decision-making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns ..." (emphasis added). If you have questions about it, please ask more experienced editors. Taking the time to understand this is going to save you some entries in your block log. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you got me wrong, my idea is not that "consensus is two against one", my idea was that if there are only three editors discussing or even two editors discussing and one of them asks on a forum for the help of a third editor as they believe that other editor's POV is not fair and that third editor gives the opinion which goes against their POV, they should take it as consensus against them and accept. As you might very well know that consensus is not unanimity as well so all three editors do not have to agree for it to be consensus. If there were more than three editors discussing then definitely simple majority would not dictate a consensus, you would need many more editors than a simple majority to dictate a consensus. No admin jumps in to resolve conflicts (I jumped in to resolve the conflict, it was not my dispute) but they are more than ready and willing to block editors. If you and other admins would have jumped in to this dispute a lot earlier (so there were not only three editors) and helped to resolve it like you are doing now then it would have been a different case. I am ready to accept whatever the consensus would be, I am in no way fixated to include those allegations, although I would like to very much as I believe as per WP:WELLKNOWN, they belong in the article but consensus is consensus and I would accept whatever it is. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should we mention the murder allegation ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the murder allegation (proposed below) against the subject be included in this BLP? While such allegations should generally be avoided per WP:BLPCRIME but WP:PUBLICFIGURE states In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

Gabol is a public figure and and the murder incident was noteworthy, relevant here, and is well documented as I noted here. --Saqib (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Zafar Baloch, a prominent leader of Peoples' Aman Committee was killed by unknown assailants in Lyari Town. The father of Zafar Baloch accused Gabol of killing his son claiming that "Three days before Zafar’s murder, Nabil Gabol had told the media that the people of Lyari would soon hear some good news. I believe he was talking about the killing of my son". Subsequently a police case was registered against Gabol. The Express Tribune reported that during the course of investigation, sources disclosed that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) which was constituted to investigate the murder of Zafar Baloch did not find any conclusive proof of Gabol's involvement in the killing. Habib Jan Baloch, chairperson Friends of Lyari, rejected the result of the JIT investigation saying “The JIT has no credibility". References

• Oppose This section gives undue weight to an unproven and very serious allegation by an unreliable, biased individual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it
• Support as nom. --Saqib (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:CENSOR! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A mention of a five year old murder allegation without an arrest gives far too much weight to an unsubstantiated allegation, especially when an investigation didn't support the allegation and claims are coming from the victim's family. As written, the article is giving people who want to tarnish him (the only recourse they may have now) a platform for a campaign. There may be another way to mention it but it is not as it is now written. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@FloNight: You opposed wording and said "There may be another way to mention it". Can you maybe suggest your wording? --Saqib (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The issues are a) undue weight given to something that is not substantiated. b) the article doesn't look encyclopedic (concise overview of important information about the topic) My suggestion to counter undue weight is to expand the article to include more general biographical information, more general information about his political philosophy, more general information about his political accomplishment and defeats. After the article provides overall information about his life, then it would be possible to add a concise general sentence or two about the inquiries opened and closed about him. Take out the sentence currently in the article that says "In February 2016, the National Accountability Bureau launched an inquiry against Gabol for allegedly causing loss of millions of rupees to the exchequer.[11]" (this is not good because it leaves it hanging as an allegation) and replace with one or two general concise sentence that speak to all of the inquiries that have been opened and closed against him. Something like, "A mixture of criminal and governmental investigations have been opened and closed as inconclusive or without finding wrongdoings against Gabol." A few of the best reliable sources would be added to support the sentence.

Regarding Wikipedia policy, BLP policy trumps all other policy. While it is true that Wikipedia is not censored, it is also not a collection of allegation that occur in news cycles. We don't leave them out because the article subject doesn't like it. We don't use them because they give a skewed and often unfair view of the person. Wikipedia is tertiary source that we write using editorial discretion. An article should have a neutral presentation of the most relevant facts. This article with the current wording is clearly not doing that. I hope this helps explain my perspective and what I would like to see this article look like in the future to be a good quality article. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Include Mention, not section - A whole section seems WP:UNDUE given the state of the article. There seems like there's significant enough sourcing to mention the allegations though. NickCT (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Funny how this RfC was started while Balochworld is conveniently blocked. Softlavender (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you meaning to attack the motivation of the proposer or the motivation of the blocking admin? A comment on the proposed edit would be more helpful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

We block editors because they were disruptive. We do not halt Wikipedia to a standstill or stop editing and improving articles just because of a block of a disruptive user. This is definitely convenient as it provides room to constructive editors to improve the article without worrying about disruption. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Balochworld was blocked September 14. This RfC was opened two days later. Why would I be referring to the blocking admin? Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Exclude - according to the sources available, the murder allegation came directly from the victim's father, and there is little agreement among the sources that a case ever was actually registered against Gabol by the police or if it was just reported that way because of the father's insistence. Any mention of the murder after about a week later doesn't mention Gabol at all, suggesting that the third-party allegation was not taken seriously, and any reporting on the joint investigation indicates no evidence was found against Gabol and the matter was dropped. This appears to be politically-motivated mudslinging and does not belong in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include - But it should also be mentioned that a police case was registered, and an investigation time did not find evidence supporting the charge. I also agree that it should not be an entire section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude -- Per Ivanvector and Flo. These accusations coupled with some political mudslinging are pretty routine and it hardly deserves encyclopedic coverage. BLP takes precedence over most other policies including CENSOR and I echo Flo that an Wikipedia article is not a collection of allegation that occur in news cycles. ∯WBG^converse 07:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude (Summoned by bot) 5 years old, never went anywhere. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude (Summoned by bot) Wikipedia does not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Unless reliable sources report that Gadol was involved in the killing, it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia entry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Inciude (Summoned by bot) because he was booked for the crime. But it should not be an entire section. Given the length of this article that would be undue emphasis. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Election boycott

As per some news stories, Gabol announced to boycott the 2013 general election from Constituency NA-248 on the day of polling (11 May 2013). Votes were polled and Shah Jahan Baloch won from the Constituency NA-248 after defeating Nabeel Gabol. Definately should be mentioned but I've no idea how. --Saqib (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Why would you revert a change that was backed by reliable sources. I mentioned two sources. He boycotted the election as Uzair Baloch had hijacked polling stations. Noblekhi (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Noblekhi: OK But I reverted your edit because you removed sourced material. --Saqib (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I never removed any sourced material. I included the part where you said he ran for the elections and updated the fact that he later boycotted. I would appreciate it if you update this fact or don't revert it if I update it. many thanks. Noblekhi (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Here you removed the following passage; but was unsuccessful. He received 6,489 votes and lost the seat to Shah Jahan Baloch. --Saqib (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

NAB Inquiry

I'm concerned about the mention of an alleged "Nab inquiry." I notice that a couple of editors above also pointed out that its too old and there is no news of any progress or outcome. Is it ok to leave it hanging infinitely like this. In fact if one searches for any charge/formal investigation/ trial against Gabol there is no mention of such a thing.

ref: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1789899/1-nab-investigating-70-politicians-govt-officials-senate-told/ ref: https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/07/09/nab-publishes-list-of-those-under-inquiry/ ref: https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/387720-71-politicians-bureaucrats-being-investigated-by-nab ref: http://nab.gov.pk/Ops/179%20x%20Mega%20Cases.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khiguy (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Khiguy: First of all, you should declare your socks. --Saqib (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: why you are making people and things controversial. seems to me you are having some personal agenda. i clearly stated in the change, as also pointed by some editors above, that the NAB inquiry seems irrelevant here as it was only mentioned in one article with no follow up in over 2 years. at the same time if you google babar ghauri you will be finding that arrest warrants have been issued for him. it would be nice if you control your ego and remove the nab inquiry (supposed) from this article @FloNight: thanks Khiguy (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Murder allegation

@SheriffIsInTown: I'm curious if it's worth revisiting the consensus we reached back in 2018. At that time, some suggested that this could be condensed into a single sentence rather than a whole section. I still believe it deserves a mention, especially considering its connection to the Lyari unrest. What are your thoughts on this? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)