# Talk:Ishaq Dar

This article does not discuss any early life, childhood and background of the person. Even his father name is not mentioned in a single time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.36.109 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 

This article is ridiculously biased in favour of Dar and his policies. "leading financial-cum-economic expert", "From his enviable educational record to professional acumen, and from his peerless political career to holding various important portfolios, Senator Dar stands out par excellence", "Dar was once again called upon to rescue the nose-diving economy". And those are just the lede. I don't know very much about Dar and his work in Pakistani politics but this is really clearly over the line. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

These are simply excerpts from Dar's published profile in the Senate Newsletter. But coming from your point of view; totally understand where its coming from. Will try not to duplicate the published profile into main content and try to keep it neutral. Thanks for your input.Pakistani88 (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If you dont know much then do your research. No one is stopping you to add any controversial reported material on Dar. Make a new heading "Controversies" and list them with references. writing only the positive does not make it wrong or bias. And for God sake stop removing the political offices, "plethora of minor unneeded offices" are NOT MINOR. Clearly Federal Commerce Minister and Leader of the Opposition in the Upper House of a country is NOT MINOR. Its just good information for people to know; why does it bother you! I dont want to get into an edit fight with you so just make useful contributions! I left you a message on your talk page but clearly you just ignore!Pakistani88 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, Ishaq Dar is a credible man. Writing facts with references does not make it bias! The more information there is, the better! Dude the political offices are at the bottom, no one even looks there! leave it as is! Economicchange (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Therequiembellishere; terms like "leading financial-cum-economic expert", "called upon to rescue the nose-diving economy of Pakistan" and "tenure was unfortunately cut short" should be converted to "leading financial-cum-economic expert", "called upon to rescue[d] the nose-diving economy of Pakistan" and "tenure was unfortunately cut short". These are all words that are not allowed under the WP:PEACOCK guidelines. Therefore, I put up a Peacock template on the article context — Arun Zaheeruddin (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed the article's lead and a few paragraphs in the article. There are still quite a lot of issues with the article and I would be fixing them later. I urge authors and editors to not just straight-forwardly undo the revisions and first discuss why they are not happy with the edits – Arun Zaheeruddin (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the article in its entirety. — Arun Zaheeruddin (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This article features content from various news stories in the papers and are a stark example of blatant plagiarism, thereby violating the WP:PLAG guidelines. Article content must not be copy-pasted from various URLs but need to be written in a comprehensive manner usually including citations to those sources in that particular context. If there is no change in the text and if the article is not correctly resolved, there would be no better way than to delete this information in its entirety. — Arun Zaheeruddin (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have taken out all the copyvio content from the page. Most of it was not even related to the Ishaq Dar but the fiscal budget. — Arun Zaheeruddin (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This article has been receiving its fair share of vandalised content. This cannot be tolerated under Wikipedia guidelines. I might just request for this page to be protected if the vandalism continues. Meanwhile, we will stick with this revision until things settle down — Arun Zaheeruddin (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dawn (newspaper) has at some point been used as a source for Dar having been born in 1950. User:Mewulwe objects to this, saying that the 1950 date has been in the Wikipedia article since 2009, that the Dawn article cited was published after this, and that Dawn's reputation is such that it is most likely that the article merely took the year from the Wikipedia article.
Dawn (newspaper) has been discussed at WP:RSN before.
How do people feel about whether this birth year should be accepted based on this evidence, or not? MPS1992 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'm not expressing a particular opinion about Dawn. I don't know any newspaper that could be trusted not to use Wikipedia. This happens all the time. The probability that such sourcing would be circular is certainly significant enough, therefore what's needed is either a source predating the original Wikipedia addition, or an official or primary one (a personal site of his, a government or parliament site, etc.). Besides, is it common in Pakistan to be at university at age 16? http://www.senate.gov.pk/en/profile.php?uid=765 says "Senator Dar has had renowned institutions among his alma maters, including Government College (now Government College University), Lahore, and Hailey College of Commerce, University of Punjab, Lahore (1966-69)." Mewulwe (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Mewulwe: This report by PILDAT says Dar was born 13 May 1950, I wonder if repot of PILDAT is reliable enough to cite here? --Saqib (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No. You can see for other persons they give citations even for a birth date, not for Ishaq Dar. Practically certain they took that from Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mewulwe: You need to understand that we've plenty of RS which states Dar was born in 1950 so I object to your removal because Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --Saqib (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't apply. Potential circular RS don't verify anything. If he was actually born in 1950 and someone was able to add this in 2009, there would have to be a pre-2009 source. When all available sources are from after that time, it is almost certain these sources took it from Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability applies. I found at least three RS which states he was born in 1950. --Saqib (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Any such fact that is in Wikipedia for a certain length of time WILL appear in multiple "reliable sources." If Wikipedia itself is the oldest source to be found, it must be considered the origin of the others. Mewulwe (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright image removed
(talk) 06:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done you have not made a request, but I have removed the image you linked to as it was a copyright violation - Arjayay (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Frankmister2 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)FM2

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the editing on this page pretty biased? No references to the corruption cases against him, including ongoing ones. No reference to the collapse of the Pakistani currency under his time as Finance Minister, Crickharte (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve made a few recent changes.

businessman & investor—ampersands? really?
veteran is puffery.
a philanthropist mainly focused on child welfare & protection—more ampersands, and not everything belongs in the lede on pain of imbalance. Indeed, the lede is already crowded; cut ‘former member of the National Assembly’ and former ministerial posts too.
Born in 1950 and grew up in Lahore, Dar was educated—did an illiterate write this?
He was highly regarded for his innovative, prudent & fastidious financial management, discipline and control in the corporate world resulting in cost-savings & improved bottom-lines. The same was noticed & admired by the royal families of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. He was soon advising the royal families on large-scale investments & business ventures across the globe to their advantage.—more poorly written puffery! And it wasn’t even in the source.
making him one of the most prolific men of crises and decision-makers in the country; when it came to macroeconomic issues, balance of payment crises, energy security, bilateral & multilateral debts, food security, diplomatic crises, parliamentary politics and international disputes settlements for Pakistan.—incoherent. Some of these sources don’t even mention Dar.
In March 2018, he was re-elected to the Senate of Pakistan as the returning senator from Punjab on a technocrat seat and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has also reversed the suspension of his victory notification and restored his victory notification on 9 January 2023. It suffices to mention this in the body of the article; the lede need only state that he has been a senator since 2003.
Interestingly, Nawaz Sharif had been his batch mate at Government College University Lahore from 1964 to 1966.—no need for synthesis.
He was one of the youngest Pakistanis at the time to have passed the esteemed professional qualification.—more hagiography.
and, since then he has remained one of closest aides of Nawaz Sharif & a key federal cabinet member of Nawaz Sharif in all of his three governments.—nearly criminally vague.
Later on, in the first government of Shehbaz Sharif; the 23rd Prime Minister of Pakistan.…what does it mean? &c
After receiving recognition at the national level in 1990 for his suggestions on provincial & federal government budgets, he became the top advisor to Nawaz Sharif on monetary, fiscal, taxation, industrial, trade and national debt management. Is this a joke? I was beginning to tire of having to read these sources until I noticed the rather amusing use made of this source.
Ishaq Dar also facilitated Sharif Family to obtain a PKR 100 million line of credit, under the Islamic finance principles of Modarba; which is a special kind of partnership where one partner gives money to another for investing in a commercial enterprise. Not in source. Also, if this is entirely innocuous, why is it even encyclopædic to mention a minor business arrangement?
Right, that's enough for now. I’ll be back.

 Docentation (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The rationale for my changes is above, @119.157.101.51:. You have not advanced a single argument, whether relating to Wikipedia policy or the substance of the changes, to the effect that my changes amount to 'vandalism' or should otherwise be reverted. The only action approaching vandalism is that of reverting without discussion after an explicit invitation to above; as WP:RCD says, [t]o help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war.
I note that the user @Fiction2Facts: also displays the habit of reverting ‘vandalism’ (whether ‘mala-fide[sic’ or not). I remind you that [e]ditors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to…[c]ontributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts[.] (WP:ILLEGIT). If this pattern continues, I shall submit a checkuser request. Docentation (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I think a man at the forefront of economic, political and strategic spectacle of a country of 249.5 million people for at least for the past 33 years and have been their federal finance minister for five times, deserves a thorough, meticulous and fair assessment of his accomplishments and shortcomings before deleting encyclopedic content backed by hundreds of references & years of contributions from many editors. One can delete a specific point backed by a credible reference; but not, at any cost, annihilate entire sections on personal judgement or whims.
Regards.  Fiction2Facts (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
It would be one thing for us to have a genuine disagreement over the specific content of the edit. You instead call my edits ‘unscrupulous’ and ‘mega deletion & vandalism’, and claim they were made ‘without even studying the biography of a serious, internationally-acclaimed figure’.
You haven’t referred to a single specific detail about the content of my edits. This is not a serious argument, and I am once again reverting your reverts.
You have also not indicated whether you are the same as the IP user @119.157.101.51. Docentation (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Please respect the difference of opinion. If you genuinely need to delete that much of content; created after years of hard work of a number of reputable editors; kindly delete the parts one by one. For detailed response, kindly let me get back over the weekend. I hope it makes sense to you. Regards.   Fiction2Facts (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
It’s extremely unsatisfactory to revert edits without actually explaining your edits. If you haven’t yet actually had time to explain your revert, don’t revert, and explain first.
years of hard work—that is not an argument for the retention of material; there is no Wikipedia policy about ‘years of hard work’.
kindly delete the parts one by one—each is explained above, one by one. You are welcome to revert them individually with an actual argument.
Your edits are tendentious and verge on vandalism. I am reverting them once again. You have still not denied that you are the IP user @119.157.101.51. If you are, your reverts also verge on violating WP:3RR; I therefore am taking this to ANI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishaq_Dar&oldid=1159590336
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishaq_Dar&oldid=1159711598
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishaq_Dar&oldid=1159766732
Docentation (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fiction2Facts: you have reverted again: [1]. I forgot to take this to ANI on 12 June but I am certainly doing so now, and reverting your edits for repeated disruptive editing that violates WP:RCD. To recapitulate, none of amount to meaningful arguments:
terming edits ‘mala fide vandalism’ without reference to any particular policy or the content of the edits;
pointing out the importance of the subject (‘a man forefront of economic, political and strategic spectacle’) without reference to any particular policy or the content of the edits;
demanding ‘thorough, meticulous and fair assessment of his accomplishments and shortcomings’ without reference to any particular policy or the content of the edits;
defending ‘content backed by hundreds of references & years of contributions from many editors’ without reference to what it actually said or how it was edited;
claiming that edits ‘annihilate entire sections on personal judgement or whims’ ignoring the actual content of the edits and arguments immediately above; and
promising a ‘detailed response…over the weekend’.
Docentation (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fiction2Facts (talk · contribs) / @119.157.101.51 (talk · contribs) / 202.165.236.224 (talk · contribs):
I see you are fairly new here and have done little editing outside this topic. I think perhaps you don't understand this website or its rules since you are violating them and Docentation has had to repeatedly revert your edits. Please take a long, hard look at this summary page: Wikipedia:Five pillars.
I understand that the way we do things -- the approach that Docentation is insisting on -- is not how you think this site should be run. There are thousands of editors and admins over the last 20+ years that have developed and refined these rules with strong community consensus. You are not just editing in opposition to Docentation, you are editing against the broader community. If it's not already too late, this is your last chance to turn back or you and your IPs will be indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia.
Think this over carefully. --A. B. (talk • contribs  •  global count) 23:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fiction2Facts, this has been escalated. See:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ishaq Dar: edit warring and potential sockpuppetry
--A. B. (talk • contribs  •  global count) 00:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The said editor has further deleted 11,000+ characters and even changed the names of the ministries to Sharif Ministry. There is no Sharif ministry. His Excellency Ishaq Dar is the Federal Minister of Finance & Revenue in Pakistan. Please look into it to ensure the integrity of such an important article.  Fiction2Facts (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The said editor has further deleted 11,000+ characters—yes, and I invite discussion, including from you. Much of the editing was with a view to making the article more concise.
There is no Sharif ministry. Yes there were: First Nawaz Sharif ministry, Second Nawaz Sharif ministry, Third Nawaz Sharif ministry.
His Excellency Ishaq Dar is the Federal Minister of Finance & Revenue in Pakistan. Are you suggesting a change from ‘Finance Minister of Pakistan’ to ‘Minister of Finance and Revenue of Pakistan’ in the lede?
Docentation (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@202.165.236.222 you appear to be editing in the same vein as @119.157.101.51 @202.165.236.224 @Fiction2Facts.
The only page you have edited is this page.
You changed the photo to one uploaded by Fiction2Facts.
If you are the same person, you have already been warned about editing whilst logged out. If not, given your edits are solely to this page, you appear to be a sock or meatpuppet. I am am reporting this at ANI again.
On the substance of the edits:
[2]—you write This deletion has created a vast multitude of disconnect between many a references. I have no idea what this means. I am not sure any other editor would either. Else: (i) new references should be added to support the deletions There is no policy requiring deletions to be supported by references. This is a rather odd claim. (Otherwise, if I were to add an unsourced claim, would someone else have to provide a source to remove it?) or each deletion should be explained in the talk.. I have already explained edits above, with no result. I am happy to discuss each individual edit, but it is hard to make out what your problem is. Most of the edits are broadly of the same kind as above. I am therefore reverting this edit.
[3]—these are not actual references; they are external links. I shall move them.
Docentation (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

record—there’s no need to bang on about how becoming finance minister four times is a record; who cares?
honor—the standard spelling in Pakistani English is honour.
This Dawn report does not actually back up the claim that [Dar] has been credited for stabilizing the economy of Pakistan. But the FT article following does. Someone has very annoyingly inserted sources in the middle of sentences when they could easily go at the end, so some sources go before for three years after 2013, some after, and then some after in particular steering country out of balance of payments crisis in 2013[sic]. And then some of the sources are not so flattering as suggested. For example, Tribune remarks that He has been accused of using Statistics Division, mainly Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, to manipulate statistics to show better economic performance. The independent economists had questioned the economic growth figures for the fiscal year 2014-15 and 2015-16. Yet that is not mentioned—only credit for stabilizing[sic] the economy!
He was also appointed Leader of the House in the Senate of Pakistan. Not in source.
 Docentation (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)