Talk:Lettergate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asad Majeed Khan related news refs[edit]

Ghulam Sarwar Khan Shehryar Khan Afridi controversy[edit]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

inquiry commission related news refs[edit]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both nominator and reviewer agree this DYK nomination should be closed as unsuccessful.

(
)

Created by Hindustani.Hulk and Bookku. Nominated by Bookku (talk) at 06:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Earwig not working. New enough, long enough, no QPQ needed. Article sourced. Hook needs some work. Article needs copy editing. I red through it and could not figure out what it was about. I suggest more clearly stating the issue in the lead. Perhaps submit this to the GOCE. --evrik (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think either hook can run under the current wording per the "unduly focuses on one side of an issue" criterion. They also don't sound very neutral. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please let us know when that is done. ALt1 is better, but are there any other hook ideas? --evrik (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, there is reasonable scope and opportunity for User:Hindustani.Hulk to expand the article further and also make it neutral. And such expansion likely to open more hook ideas.
I got interested in DyK for this article because it brings forth how politicians play politics and a political process (in Pakistan or else where) takes shape.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very reluctant to link to this article from anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone the main page. The article does not explain what it is about. I left notes on the talk page and a few {{clarify}} templates. This article needs explanation and development, not copy editing of existing prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to give this a limited time to get edited into shape. --evrik (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not thrilled with this piece. Is it notable? Is it well written? Anyone else want to weigh in? --evrik (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the state of the article. While listing the article I had included some content with neutral point of views and collated a collection of refs for further expansion of the article. And expected more eyes on the article shall help neutral contributory environment but that does not seem to happen. So it's okay to close the request as unsuccessful as of now. Thanks to User:evrik and others.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? Much more context and explanation needed[edit]

There is nothing in the lead that actually summarizes the topic. What happened? Why is it called "Lettergate"? Who called it "Lettergate"? What happened on 7 March? What happened between 7 March and 27 March? Why did Prime Minister Imran Khan say what he said about foreign influence? This article needs a lot more context and explanation of what happened? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hindustani.Hulk: Pinging you to draw your attention to above expressed concerns. I hope above inputs will be helpful to you in improving the article further. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hindustani.Hulk: Kindly requesting again to look into inputs by User:Jonesey95. I had given more detailed timeline but your edit has chosen to not include for unexplained reason. Present status of the article looks too pro–Imran Khan and opposition views and US official position does not seem to get any space making the article doubtful on ground of neutrality. If you can take concerns into account it shall help DYK reaching main page.
Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letter Vs. Diplomatic cable[edit]

Greetings @Jonesey95:,

One of the clarification sought by you through clarification tag is when it was a matter of Diplomatic cable why it is being referred as being a 'letter'.

Following things might be happening.

  • By now the clear thing is it was an internal Diplomatic cable by then Pakistan's Ambassador Khan to Pakistan' Foreign office. (And not an official letter by US Govt to Pakistan. The kind of initial impression audience got from first speech of previous PM Imran Khan)
  • The subsequent (present) Prime Minister too seem to refer to the Diplomatic cable as Diplomat's 'khat' (The word Khat gets translated as Letter in English)
  • In part ambiguity seem to be introduced by previous P.M. Imran Khan for political gain and part of ambiguity seem to come from translation issue; carried forward almost as is by Pakistan English language media.
  • Logically 'Diplomatic cable–gate' would be less ambiguous but one more difficulty is most English language media is using word 'Lettergate'.

Again WP editors too are repeating word 'letter'. What is your opinion, how to avoid ambiguity?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend using something more general, such as "message" or "dispatch." I would suggest that "Lettergate" stemmed from Khan's reference to the message as a "letter," while waving a physical piece of paper to the crowd; I would further suggest that if the term "Lettergate" is in common usage by now, it should be retained, even if it doesn't reflect the actual format of the message. However, referring to the message as a "letter" anywhere in the article should be reversed. Ormewood (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may have caused a problem...I need someone more experienced with editing to fix it[edit]

I added a sentence in the opening paragraph which added the alleged cause of the uproar, i.e. that the contents of the message detailed the wish of the United States for the prime minister to be removed over his neutral stance over the Russian invasion of Ukraine along with the consequences if this did not occur. When I attempted to reference the source, though, I ended up with two entries for the same source in the reference section, and I don't know how to fix that (my edits usually don't go much further than rewording, grammar and punctuation corrections, and reversing vandalism, and I'm inexperienced in a lot of respects when I attempt to do more complicated edits).

I think it's important for the opening paragraph to have this information, so I'm not reverting my edit, which would be the easiest solution. But it does need to be fixed. Any advise as to how to avoid this happening again would also be much appreciated. Ormewood (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to suggest that my addition addressed most of the problems brought up in the template at the head of the article. I would like to initiate a discussion on this, and if it's appropriate, a removal of the template. Ormewood (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lettergate&oldid=1202770312"