Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan

HomeNotice boardDiscussion boardRecentRecognized contentMembersDepartmentsWikiProject templates

This page serves as a discussion board for topics specifically relevant to Wikipedians working on articles about Pakistan.

Click here to add a new section

Ali Zafar

In The News

• Hi. I have nominated this article for WP:ITN. However, the problem is that currently Wikipedia lacks sufficient updates regarding the defamation case by Zafar against Meesha Shafi. We have multiple WP:MIRROR informations, including Ali Zafar#Controversies, MeToo movement in Pakistan#Film industry, and Meesha Shafi#Ali Zafar Incident. But these still are scattered. Can anyone please make one article for it, and redirect each sections? Thank you! M. Billoo 14:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Copied information from all three pages here: User:M.Billoo2000/Ali Zafar vs. Meesha Shafi. However, it is still untidy. A reference article to look up would be Depp v. Heard. M. Billoo 18:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Created and expanded Ali Zafar vs. Meesha Shafi, a mainspace page. M. Billoo 18:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1346397719: ITN nom failed due to BLPPRIVACY and SNOW. M. Billoo 20:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Inflation

• One more concern. The suit was of Rs. 100 crore filed in June 2018, but the court ruled in March 2026 for only Rs. 50 lakh. In terms of PKR valuation, it is 200 times difference. But in terms of inflation, the US$1 was about Rs. 121.143 at that date, but is now about Rs. 279.053 at current date. This makes the difference 460.7 times lesser. M. Billoo 17:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The inflation and valuation is noted here (not exact value, just for reference). M. Billoo 14:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

DYK?

• Hi. Can an article, created after copy-pasting chunks from multiple other articles, be nominated for DYK? Note that at the time of the original copy-paste, the draft was 7905 B. However, the recent state of the article says 10314 characters (1465 words), and displays eligibility for DYK due to newness after being moved to mainspace. Note that it was disapproved from the ITN. And similarly, I do not see any such visible history on Talk:Depp v. Heard or Talk:MeToo movement, being featured on DYK or ITN. So, this makes me curious. Regardless, can I still request an independent review here, because it seems that the article may still not qualify WP:NPOV despite being stable enough for WP:N and WP:V. Thank you! M. Billoo 04:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion here: . Ty. M. Billoo 14:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Two sort of similar articles have recently appeared on the main page, yet my proposal was opposed/closed. 2026 Quan Hongchan cyberbullying incident and Werth v. Taylor. M. Billoo 17:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Sensational Gossip?

@Cameron Dewe: Hi, hope you are doing well. Thank you for your assessment and feedback on the article. Can you please specifically highlight which prose falls under SENSATIONAL or GOSSIP violation?

By subject and by the recent verdict, this may look like a dispute between the two individuals only, however, details in the article explain how many other people and brands were also involved. I have also linked the verdict pdf of 158 pages, but solely depending on it would be PRIMARY only. So, I am still gathering as many secondary references over the years as possible to rely over that document, and also to neutralize it with the claims of the defendant as per the NPOV. Otherwise, the article would also look like biased and one sided. There was not only one case, but more than 40 cases were derived within, and apparently the defendant can still file their appeal challenging the verdict. And the main thing the plaintiff quotes, he was being forced to loose contracts to end his career.

So in short, it is:

• Zafar vs. Shafi
• Shafi vs. Zafar
• Zafar vs. Ali Gul Pir
• Leena Ghani vs. Zafar
• Zafar vs. Pepsi
• Zafar vs. PSL
• ... and so on.

So I believe, every case should need an intro, a main body story, and the current status (or the last possible update), all complying WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. That is what I am trying to do to at least explain the proceedings. You may see that I have only introduced some other names in the article as well without explaining about them any much, including Ali Sibtain Fazli, Saba Hameed, Nighat Dad, Humna Raza, etc.

There may be many other gossips in the Pakistan entertainment industry as a reaction and aftermath of this case, like:

• Fawad Khan who in 2018 was with Shafi at Pepsi, but with Zafar as well in Teefa's promotion
• Momina Mustehsan commenting on the case
• Journalist Mahwash Ajaz first siding Shafi then siding Zafar
• Journalist Iqrar Ul Hassan's reactions
• Actresses Ayesha Omar, Maya Ali's reactions
• ... and so on. These are the gossips that I believe have nothing to do with the case or both the title parties and should not be included.

At one glance, witnesses are also introduced in the article of Depp v. Heard, and article of Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases also contains 100+ victims' names. But there are still (or should be at least) both sides' stories to comply NPOV.

Still, looking forward to your (and anyone else's as well) comments. Thank you! M. Billoo 13:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: I think the whole article about Ali Zafar vs. Meesha Shafi borders on being WP:SENSATIONAL. The title of the article suggests it is about a legal case. However, only one paragraph in the section headed Zafar's defamation suit actually appears to be about the named court case in the title. However, I don't see anything in the article that explains why this case is precedent setting or novel in terms of any legal decision made about the case. The rest of the article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for something else that is going on between Ali Zafar and Meesha Shafi. This article looks like something I would read in a tabloid journal, which is why I added the comment that "Wikipedia is not a gossip column. WP:NOTGOSSIP.". I wonder how this article is encyclopaedic. The catalyst event in this case is not the court case, but Meesha Shafi alleging she was sexually harassed. If this article were named differently, such as the "sexual harassment of Meesha Shafi by Ali Zafar", which is what the article MeToo movement in Pakistan describe this event as, perhaps I would have a different opinion, as a different title would change my expectations of what the article is really about. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe: Thank you for responding. I may agree with the title change. But do you have any better suggestion(s)? The current suggestion seems very biased / non-NPOV, considering the nature of the legal battle and where it stands right now. And again, I would say, there are multiple cases derived out of Shafi's allegations and Zafar's denial, so mentioning all worth. I can also consider reshaping the article by using different levels of headings without missing any current information. M. Billoo 07:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe: This website provides summary of court proceedings in Zafar's defamation case from a recent interview by Zafar's lawyer on YouTube. Everything is so much related in the defamation and cybercrime cases that are worth mentioning here and is not COATRACK. Still awaiting your response, thank you! M. Billoo 19:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I personally do not agree with you. A high profile case like this in your comments is mostly seems biased and in the favor of Meesha instead of being neutral. There is absolutely no need to create a different complete section in the artist biography for this case as seen in Johnny Depp biography it’s a paragraph mentioning the case to make it a cleaner bio rather than focusing on it for a cleaner look. Currently as it states it feels like its meant to be focused on. Kiranin69 (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kiranin69: Thank you for commenting. But, I still see you are not getting the point about what WP:NPOV is. The verdict is out in favour of Zafar, but the case is not yet over. Again, there is not only one case, but many other related cases.

With all due respect, the prose you are willing is just a basic and focused information, and that I agree. But what I disagree is displaying only that prose which is completely biased with one side. Any reader should know that the legal battle is not yet over, and only that way the reader may want to know more by visiting the case article. This is being not biased towards any side as per the NPOV. Thank you. M. Billoo 15:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

so why does johny depp biography does not have a separate section but his profile is required to have it?. My main point is in his or her profile it seems focused on that case when it’s a part of their career and can be mentioned somewhere else not requiring an entire headline section for either of the artist? Kiranin69 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe: Hi again. Any comments with the current condition after I attempted a slight restructure? Thank you! M. Billoo 13:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

---

@AntiDionysius and Kiranin69: Hi, mentioning you too in regards of the discussion at User talk:Kiranin69#April 2026. I have updated the paragraph in all three related pages (Ali Zafar#Meesha Shafi case, MeToo movement in Pakistan#Ali Zafar vs. Meesha Shafi, and Meesha Shafi#Ali Zafar case) to reflect what the progress is on the main page now (Ali Zafar vs. Meesha Shafi). Please check, any comments are most welcome. Thank you! M. Billoo 22:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Abdal Bela

Please confirm if he is dead, and add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Noor Khan Bizanjo

The article Noor Khan Bizanjo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability and refimprove concerns for 13 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced Memorial by a fan.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jamia Uloom-i-Sharia

The article Jamia Uloom-i-Sharia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for multiple issues over the past 11 years, this is about a run of the mill madrassa. Created by SPA with nine edits. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2026 (UTC)