Jump to content

Talk:Usman Khawaja

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 182.183.7.252 (talk) at 00:32, 15 January 2024 (→Removing Undue info.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Counting the Muslims and foreigners

I'm getting and a little bit sick of hearing about Usman being the "first Muslim...", "the first Pakistani-born" and now "only the seventh foreign born cricketer...", and I'm wondering how sure we are of all this, and how appropriate it all is. The source is one article from The Daily Telegraph, not always the world's best source. The article is full of biases we would never allow here - "blue blood Afrikaner" about Kepler Wessels, and "wristy flicks and flourishes that tend to be bestowed on those with DNA from the subcontinent" about Khawaja.

Who has really checked that no-one before Khawaja was Muslim? Remember that first class cricket has been played here since the 1800s. Can anyone list the religion of every player? And as for where everyone was born, well.....

Again, no player in the team is described as Christian, or Atheist, or Methodist, upon his selection. Too much concentration on a matter irrelevant to the reason he has an article, coupled with a real danger of POV being on display. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph (UK) is normally a reliable broadsheet source. I suspect the author got the fact from somewhere else, so that "somewhere else" is worth looking for. On the Muslim issue, the source says "is believed to be the first Australian Muslim to play interstate cricket" which supports your call for caution. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I was mistaken. When I saw Daily Telegraph I assumed it was a Sydney paper of the same name but somewhat lesser reputation. I still want to be more certain about the Muslim thing. For example, there's a famous train in central Australian called The Ghan, named after Afghan camel drivers who came here in the 1800s to help open up the dry centre. They were Muslim. Many of their descendants still live here. Some probably played cricket. Most Australian kids do. Interstate cricket? I don't know. I doubt if our journalist or his source does either. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree the Herald article is nowhere near a solid enough source for the claim. How about replacing that whole sentence with "Khawaja made his first class debut for New South Wales in February 2008." We could qualify the "first Muslim" claim with "understood to be…" or something like that, but I don't see the need. The sources are a lot more confident that he was the first Muslim Australian Test player which, curiously, the article doesn't mention.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments. Firstly, that Khawaja is both Muslim and Pakistani-Australian is notable and encyclopedic. It merits inclusion in his article. He is most certainly the first Muslim and first Pakistani-Australian to play Test cricket for Australia. On the second claim re: First-Class cricket, I would suggest that Duncan Sharpe was the first Pakistani-Australian to play first class cricket in Australia, but it depends how you look at it. Sharpe was not a Muslim, though. Plenty of other Muslims have played first class cricket in Australia before - most obviously the entire Pakistani cricket team on several occasions - but Imran Khan played a season for New South Wales in the 1980s and the Nawab of Pataudi played for England in Australia on the Bodyline tour in 1932-33. I suggest both claims about first class cricket need further clarification-- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we're all largely in agreement, I've made this edit to implement what we've discussed. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsorship

I removed a sentence about Khawaja's sponsorships here. Just posting here to explain in case anyone objects. First, the sentence wasn't supported by the cited source. Nor could I find any other source supporting it. Second, I'm not sure of the value of this information to the article. I would have thought that an athlete's sponsorship deals are only worth mentioning if there is something unusal about them or they affected the athlete's career in some way.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racial discrimination

Based on the latest statements by Usmaan about the racial discrimination he faced for being a Pakistani born, I wanted to add on page, it’s a verified information and must be added, I am open for discussion with anyone who thinks otherwise but Don’t delete stuff Itisanimesh (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace, Prior Nationality, and Ethnicity in Lead

I am unsure why we are including this individual's birthplace, prior nationality, or ethnicity in the lead, and specifically too in the first sentence. Per MOS:Ethnicity, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Even if we felt this individual's religion or ethnicity were relevant to his notability, is it really relevant enough to be part of the very first sentence? That seems a bit odd and inappropriate. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Undue info.

@Chinmay0777, the piece of info merits removal as the post was not of serious nature and does not has the WP:DUEWeight. Futhermore, the language used also was against WP:Neutrality. Also look up WP:NOTNEWS. 182.183.7.252 (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not practice vandalism. It's wrong to remove correct and updated information. Do not practice vandalism again ,I will report you for blocking of your IP Chinmay0777 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of making threat, please read on the links I gave about on Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. The "Views" section can only contain information of serious nature that accurately captures the main issue.
The information about what was the article subject stance, and ICC response to it to his standpoint are already presented and are more than enough.
The sarcastic tweet is hardly consequential enough to justify space in a biography. 182.183.7.252 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EasyAsPai, may need your input. 182.183.7.252 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Took a look, and I don't know that some mention of his post is entirely UNDUE - we mention that someone else called out the ICC for hypocrisy, so it's reasonable to include his own statement about it. I do agree that the language isn't neutral as-is.
I reworked the section a bit to include the post (since we have an RS discussing it), but to avoid things like "dragged into it." It still highlights his support for Palestine, his Instagram post, and the response by others in support, without including such a large paragraph on the post. Is this an acceptable compromise? EasyAsPai (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am still unsure about the necessity for inclusion of a sarcastic insta post, but I think the revision is now fine. 182.183.7.252 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Usman_Khawaja&oldid=1195723139"