Jump to content

Talk:Tarek Fatah/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Tarek Fatah

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 27 April 2023 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Tarek Fatah) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1

"fringe organization"

I removed this text:

It is clearly not NPOV and therefore does not belong on Wikipedia. - Mcasey666 23:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"300 member" "conservative groups"

Ceren1 19:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Ceren

I deleted the "300 member" since not even the MCC website claims to have 300 members, nor there's any proof that the group indeed has 300 members.

I deleted the "conservative" groups since there are progressive Muslim groups, such as the Canadian Muslim Union that have expressed disagreement with Fatah's views.

BLP, and associated

This article has recently been the subject of some statements and additions which directly contravene our biographies of living persons policy. As noted in the history, the subject of this article - Tarekfatah (talk) - edits Wikipedia, and has also filed on OTRS ticket (2007032210017477) regarding possibly defamatory statements in this article.

I have semi-protected this article for a period of one month, commencing now, given the edits of concern were made by IP addresses. I ask that all users please read WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and be extra-cautious when adding statements to this article. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space" (emphasis in original, from WP:BLP).

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, and I hope everyone appreciates the rationale for this decision. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 03:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

I've removed several unsourced statements that were very critical of Fatah. In addition to being unsourced, they were not presented in a NPOV style. If they are to be reinserted, both of these requirements should be met.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

User 99.240.105.246 (talk) has again posted unsourced or improperly sourced statements. This is a biography or a living person and therefore, statements (especially ones critical of him) must be properly sourced. If they are not, wiki policy calls for them to be immediately removed. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Political activity

Nothing is said about Fatah's positions during the recently aborted Liberal leadership race. Did he support Bob Rae again? Has he remained in the party since Michael Ignatieff assumed the leadership? I think this is important information because Fatah has now been outside the NDP for some time and his political activity in Canada can no longer be reduced solely to his occasional statements against the NDP, which are now of limited significance and interest. It is also important because Fatah was once part of an initiative seeking to prevent Ignatieff from gaining a foothold in the parliament, when Ignatieff first ran for the Liberals in Etobicoke-Lakeshore; and because Ignatieff is still widely identified with his support to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, his ambiguous stance on US recourse to torture and his support for the ongoing NATO intervention in Afghanistan. Since all these foreign-policy matters are directly connected to the issues Fatah often addresses in his public statements (ie. politics in the Arab and Muslim world), and since Fatah is now a political and media figure in Canada, I feel the article should include information about Fatah's relationship to the Ignatieff-led Liberal Party. Any thoughts?

--Marzili (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the template that states that there are "multiple issues" with the article. This template was added tot the article on April 26, 2015, see: [1]. The template mentions a series of possible issues and invites to discuss these issues on the talk page. However, none of the issues that the person who placed the template apparently has identified is brought forward or supported by argument on this talk page. Therefore I consider this template erroneously placed and not contributing to the quality of this article. --VanBuren (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tarek Fatah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tarek Fatah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tarek Fatah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

religion

[1] tarek fateh is not an ahmadi. changes saved. following is the reference https://lubpak.com/archives/316151 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.173.37 (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://lubpak.com/archives/316151

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tarek Fatah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tarek Fatah. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Too much coverage

There seem to be entire sections based on a single article published in a single source which has not even been mentioned by any other sources etc. I would like to cut down these over the top sections to bare bones. Any thoughts by other editors? TouristerMan (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The issues that are covered by a single source should be covered in a sentence generally. I've reorganized the article so it flows better but I think a lot of the information provided is excessive. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Descent

There has been some to-ing and fro-ing about the "descent" of Tarek Fatah, in the categories. Some people added "Punjabi descent," for which I found no evidence. I chose "South Asian descent" because his parents moved from India to Pakistan. So the "descent" as such cannot be said to be Pakistani. Any other views? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If he lived in Pakistan before moving to Canada, then that makes him of Pakistani descent. Although the more correct category would be Category:Pakistani emigrants to Canada, not Category:Canadian people of Pakistani descent (the latter should only be for Canadian-born people of Pakistani descent). Best to refer to what the sources say. Mar4d (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Tarek Fateh has called himself a "a Punjabi born in Islam". Bharatiya29 15:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I see the argument for Pakistani descent. I agree that Pakistani emigrant would be a better description. Let us not worry about Punjabi descent as far as categories go. But there is no harm in mentioning it in the body. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tarek Fatah. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Spelling

User:Grandioseallen - what is needed is a reliable source showing the spelling of his name. You are violating two policies now -- WP:BURDEN and WP:EW. Please bring a source here to the talk page, that you believe is a) reliable, and b) actually shows the spelling of his name in the language you want to put it in. Your edit notes are focusing on the natioanlity - that not the issue. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nationality

@Grandioseallen: Regarding this edit, a proper reason was given by Salma Mahmoud by linking to the Wikipedia policies in her edit summary. Have you looked at the links? You need to discuss contentious issues on the talk page rather than edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's very much needed!--Muzammil (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Since we had the discussion about descent (the previous section), it has come to light that Tarek Fatah likes to describe himself as being of "Indian origin". This is evidently controversial. It might be best to leave out all mention of his origins in the lead. If he does not wish to identify as a Pakistani, we can't impose it on him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: that Tarek Fatah hates his motherland is a different issue altogether. After all, we don't write this article to please him. --Muzammil (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about his supposed "hatred" for his "motherland". But ethnicity is always self-ascribed. If he regards himself as an "Indian" rather than a "Pakistani", we can't say otherwise. We say that he is Pakistan-born, which is factual. That is all we can say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay. --Muzammil (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)::::
Kautilya3. If that is the case, then all our historical to contemporary figures which lot of Indians recollect to should be removed as of "Indian" origin who may have been from what is now Pakistani soil or abroad. Ranjit Singh (rule most of the vast land which is now Pakistan), Chanakya (student from Taxila, part of PK), VS Naipaul (West Indian national of Indian origin), Sundar Pichar ( US citizen, CEO of Google, but of Indian origin), Salman Rushdie(famous writer, UK citizen of Indian origin), MF Hussain (India's picasso, Qatari National of Indian origin), Fareed Zakaria (CNN's and world's top anchor, US citizen, of Indian Konkani origin) and so much more. So, if we start excluding these people, then what is left. He himself has accepted that he is of Indian origin, as his family were in Mumbai prior to independence. The debate is not whether Tarek is Indian citizen/ national or not. He is Canadian citizen and will be till his citizenship status would change. But what we cannot deny is that, if anyone from Pakistan accepts his Indian origin, and especially if his parents and grandparents were from Indian dominion prior to Independence; the least title he could get is POI, or atleast someone of Indian origin. So it is completely justified, along with reliable sources, that Tarek Fatah should be described as of Indian origin, born in Pakistan, and now a Canadian national. So please don't simply edit my phrase for some personal vendetta against him. And if being born in Pakistan suffices enough for someone to be denied Indian origin status (atleast in Wikipedia, not even officially), also after accepting said origin status, then first person to be denied Indian status is Mani Shankar Aiyar (INC party)....X)..... Grandioseallen (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

When India was partitioned, a great many Pakistanis expected India to be called 'Hindustan'. There was a great deal of resentment when India usurped the name "India". Had that not happened, all Pakistanis would have embraced their "Indian" heritage, and Tarek Fatah would have been no exception.

The reason we can't call him "Indian" is that we don't have WP:SECONDARY source that calls him an Indian. If you can produce one, please feel free to add it. (Mind you, a secondary source is not something that relays what Fatah says of himself. But it has to make its own independent judgement that he is Indian. If no secondary source does it, we can't do it either.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

With due respect, The reason why he is Indian is not related to his nationality, but his ethnic heritage. I mean we celebrate so many foreign abroad living people who are citizens of different countries but have their origin in india. Then why do you rake up partition as a sufficient persuasion to exclude someone who is openly announcing his Indian heritage. He has not claimed (nor have I) claimed that he is an Indian national. By saying that he is not Indian because he was born in Pakistan and ex-citizen of it after partition means that you maybe a votary of two nation theory. Because he happens to be Muslim who was a Pakistani national two decades ago. He has enough right to call himself Indian and we should not, for personal vendetta, denounce his claim.There are many scandinavians who for generations have lived in America, but are noted and claim their Scandinavian heritage.
PS - You say had India not "usurped" the name "India" and accepted Hindustan, many Pakistanis would have accepted their Indian heritage? Dear sir, that is most pompous joke I have heard, because the whole foundation of Pakistan was based not just Anti-india as in a nation state, but also anti-Indian civilization and heritage. I mean read newspapers, they have named ports after invaders like Muhammad Bin Qasim. There are just so many examples. In this instance, you lie the fault on indians for Pakistanis unable to accept their heritage, but when an ex-Pakistani happens to reclaim his Indianess, you shun his right. I have already provide the sources in his own biography. Like him there would be many figures that could be considered Indian after Pakistan creation like Abdul Ghaffar Khan, etc. Grandioseallen (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is becoming a WP:FORUMy discussion. You can produce a SECONDARY source that calls him an Indian or rest. Nothing can be done on Wikipedia without sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not denying that, and should news articles suffice? Grandioseallen (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me repeat myself. A secondary source is not something that relays what Fatah says of himself. It has to make its own independent judgement that he is Indian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Of Indian background or heritage, no? Grandioseallen (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
No. Of "Indian origin". Exactly what the text says. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Quebec shooting

this edit was WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation. The subsequent edits here added a source about the event but still made claims about the tweet that were not in the secondary source, so this is .... marginal. Will drop a note at WP:BLPN to get more feedback. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Posted: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tarek_Fatah Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Was the problem with the sourcing? The claim (coverup of a second shooter) was directly sourced, but how do you document that a particular conspiracy theory is unsubstantiated except by documenting what actually happened? Also, would this source [2] be more relevant? Newimpartial (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)newimpartial

No, that source does not mention Fatah. You need a reliable source to include that info. Please read this policy WP:OR. FuriouslySerene (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I have read that policy, and I'm afraid I don't see how it applies. If the subject of the article has stated that a coverup is taking place (and this claim is documented in the WP article), why must the source documenting the (non-conspiracy) account of what happened also refer to the particular person claiming a coverup? That seems bizarre, and is also not the standard applied to the other conspiracy theory claim present already in the same paragraph of the article we are discussing. It simply is not "original research" to juxtapose the documented statement by the subject of the article with a documented account of what actually happened. Newimpartial (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Whatever Tarek Fatah writes on any medium is a WP:PRIMARY source. You need WP:SECONDARY sources before we consider something for inclusion on Wikipedia. Even if there were secondary sources for this topic, I would argue that this material is WP:UNDUE in a biography article. Writers and activists express opinions on hundreds of things. Not all of them are fit for an encyclopedia. Only when something is prominent in the coverage in secondary sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, that isn't how the WP policies read, at all. WP:ABOUTSELF [3] clearly states that self-published sources can be used as sources of information about their authors' views, and according to WP:ORIGINAL [4], primary sources may be used so long as they are not used as the sole sources for an article, and so long as no original, unsourced interpretation is placed on the primary sources. Please note that I was adding to a paragraph created by others, concerning the subject's tweeting of conspiracy theory, which is properly sourced, is a definite thread of the existing article, and is clearly considered an important set of opinions by others besides myself. I was merely adding the newest instance of something which is already clearly present. Newimpartial (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Listen, find an article in a reliable source that discusses the tweets and debunks them. Everything in Wikipedia should be based on secondary sources and this is exactly why. The tweets are primary sources. The danger of using primary sources is discussed in all the main content policies:

  • While WP:OR allows primary sources to be used, it is "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them";
  • WP:NPOV says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
  • WP:VERIFY, in a section called "Original Research", says "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy."

So - find reliable reporting that discusses the tweets and debunks them. Then there is no problem. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I would respectfully inquire why the standard of proof you are discussing here was not applied to the paragraph to which I attached my edit? Nobody is likely to find a secondary source discussing and debunking the subject's tweets over the last few weeks, yet they are already discussed in the article (not by me). I was merely updating.Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
1) Pay attention. Look at the timestamp of this and the timestamp of your comment above. 2) Much more importantly see WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS and WP:NOTNEWS. Do not "update" Wikipedia with your own reporting. Go start a blog if you want to do original reporting somewhere on the internet. That is not what WP is for and is an abuse of your editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Whoah, dude. I'm sorry I missed your corrective edit (by 20 minutes), but I made my comparison to what was already in the paragraph at 06:21 UTC. You or other editors had 11 hours in which to make that edit before you actually did. So, yeah, I should have looked again, but it's not like I didn't look for that edit in the previous back and forth here.


Second, this is my first time dealing with a controversial BLP, and I want you to recognize what I actually did, which was to update (albeit awkwardly) a paragraph that was already there, about the same issue (conspiracy theory claims) and using the same type of evidence already used in the paragraph. Saying that this is a WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS situation is both erroneous and condescending - I was adding a point to a paragraph which was entirely consistent to what was already in that paragraph and that section of the article. And when you point out that I shouldn't have made a second try at editing it without seeking consensus, I did exactly that.


I really don't get why you would refer to "abuse of my editing privileges" and, for that matter, post the sanctions link to my TALK page at the very beginning of the discussion, when all I am is an inexperienced BLP contributor who added something basically in keeping with what was already in this article. There are better ways to deal with relative novices than threatening us with sticks. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want to learn, then stop arguing that what you did was OK. It wasn't. These conversations can go well or they can go badly. When a new editor argues instead of listening, it generally goes badly. (and yes it is kind of natural to look at what is present and take that as a standard, but that is dangerous to do per WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS -- WP has very good content in spots, kind-of-OK content in other spots, and terrible and invalid content in other spots and when new editors point to X content and say "but X!" (and that is an argument that only new editors make) they don't know if they are taking good content or bad as their example... and it is very typical that the example they choose to justify their bad edit, is someone else's bad edit that hasn't been fixed yet)
The reason I gave you notice of DS on BLP matters is exactly because you need to understand that the community takes BLP matters very seriously. That is important information for you to know and I would have done you a dis-service by not informing you of that. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not trying to argue that what I did was OK. What I have said is that I think it is understandable in the context- as when you say "yes it is kind of natural to look at what is present and take that as a standard", but then you ruin the effect of that by pointing to WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS, which I have read in its entirety now twice today and which offers no guidance at all about disputes concerning consistency within articles. It does, however, make the point that "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else" which sounds a lot like what you were doing just above. Pardon me if I misunderstood. And I wasn't justifying my bad edit, as if it were good, I was explaining why it wasn't an abuse of privileges. I do have a bit of trouble understanding why there was such a long delay from when you first undid my undo and posted the sanctions link to the point when you deleted the comparable content that I was quite obviously adding to, but whatevs.
TL; DR I know that I shouldn't have added another apparently-controversial fact using primary sources alone, just because one was already there. I won't do that again. I already knew that BLP rules are important, but was unaware of the current sanctions-based approach, so thank you. I also am now aware that some editors seem to be pretty damned intolerant of rookie mistakes.Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Glad you have learned. Here is another thing you need to learn - avoid making WP:DRAMA. I have not treated you badly and reverting your edit, explaining what you did wrong, and posting neutrally at the appropriate board are how we do things. When you have been around a while you will see examples of people acting badly. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
In poking around while looking into this, I have seen a bit of actual bad behaviour, yes. Lol. But I do suggest that your references to my "abuse of my editing priveleges", your repeated condescending references to WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS (using it in precisely the way the entry itself discourages), and your equally condescending "Pay attention" go a bit beyond "posting neutrally". OTOH, I have never objected to the revert, the explanation, or the socialization, and I appreciate those as well as the improvement you made to the original article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
You do need to pay attention to what is happening. You should not use already-existing content as examples in discussions about whether you have violated policy or not. People abuse their editing privileges all the time, and when they continually do so they get blocked or banned. All of those things are true. We are done here. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I do need to pay attention, but no, I did not "abuse my editing privileges" - I made a couple of mistakes, which I have learned not to make again.
As far as "violating policy" is concerned, what I have learned in reviewing WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and even WP:FRINGE today is that there is a fair amount of disagreement among editors when it comes to the intersection of living subjects, verifiability, synthesis and unconventional views, and that considerable judgement - and often thick skins - are required. I will certainly take this into account before editing another BLP.Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Dates and Varieties of English

Why is this article about a Canadian, resident in and working in Canada, assigned to "Indian English" and "DMY dates"? This does not seem at all appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, because whoever started the article chose those formats, Fateh having been born in Pakistan and not moving to Canada until he was 38. He says "I am an Indian born in Pakistan, a Punjabi born in Islam; an immigrant in Canada with a Muslim consciousness".
According to Date format by country Canada has the most complex date formats of any country, but we want our articles to be consistent within themselves, so as dmy is one of the three systems used in Canada, and the one used in India and Pakistan, this is clearly the most logical to stick with.
As for the type of English, Canadian English "contains elements of British English and American English" whereas Indian English is broadly similar to British English, so would generally be acceptable in Canada.
Under WP:ENGVAR we stick with the variety of English used when the article was begun, unless there is a compelling reason to change, which I do not see here. - Arjayay (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tarek Fatah. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Changes required on praise and criticism

This section's title needs to be changed to 'reception'. It then needs to be divided into two subsections one being praise, the other being criticism.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tarek Fatah. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition to lead

Rayanakho Please discuss your edits here. Until then stop removing sourced information from the article. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80/bias in article

Hi Adamgerber,

Sorry for making assumptions earlier. Can you tell me why you think Scroll.in is an opinion-based source, and what might constitute a more nuanced source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pk100000000000 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/04/22/tarek-fatah_n_9755366.html Would a Huffpost article by the Deputy Editor be acceptable to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pk100000000000 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Pk100000000000 First, the references you have provided are opinions of the authors themselves not facts. Second, you are adding a lot of content which is WP:UNDUE on WP:BLP articles and giving a lot of WP:WEIGHT to random opinion pieces. At max you can add a line or 2 in the praise or the criticism section. Lastly, please do not edit war or indulge in personal attacks and this is considered disruptive and you have been already blocked once for this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 again and Clarion Project in the lead

Again our Fatah fan wishes to censor all critcism of his favourite columnist. Clarionproject is used as a source in the lead which is ridicolous considering that organisation itself has been criticsed for islamophobia. You cannot make him out as some innocent victim with a extremely anti Muslim biased source such as Clarion project in the lead and not expect a counter lead statement it just proves that right wing groups have close contact with Fatah actually and his fans wish to hide that. 2A02:C7D:151D:D100:15AB:C86B:F3F4:4F23 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss your changes here in a cordial manner and refrain from personal attacks. We are here to improve this page as a community. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Discuss your edits here. You should know better than this. Do not edit disruptively. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues

My understanding show that a new account adds a "controversy",[5] which was reverted by one editor[6] as "revert new additions from 12 April, see WP:NPOV and WP:INDISCRIMINATE", and then restored by another editor[7] as "I don't see the WP:NPOV problem with it; please discuss on the talk page". But this is not how WP:BRD and WP:CON works. And "criticized" by who? A blogger?

In short words, are we seeing anything new that we haven't rejected before? Similar edits had been removed by Drmies before as "Rv POV character assasination" and above section on this talk page saw opposition against similar edits. To depend on the sources that have an axe to grind against this subject would be indeed a violation of WP:BLP. We can't call this person a faker by spewing some non-important incidents. Yoonadue (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I see. I suppose WP:DUE could be an issue. But not WP:BLP or boilerplate WP:NPOV.
So, how do we decide WP:DUE? No doubt, Fatah has an active social media presence and has thousands and thousands of followers. It is also undeniable he has tweeted loads of fake posts. It is wrong to claim that there is a BLP issue here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Today it is almost necessary for every notable person to maintain a presence on Social Media. But unless their tweets are having significant impact on their life (such as leading to arrests or any sanctions) I don't see why the mention should be needed at all. --Yoonadue (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The sources for criticism are probably acceptable (India Today, The Print; I guess AltNews.in is like an Indian Snopes?), but (1) per WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE, it's not appropriate to have a large section about that in the lede and (2) repeatedly calling it "fake news" is not neutral. I made an attempt to tone down the language and refactor the section headings. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Fine, we can sort it out. Since "criticism" is part of reception there was no need of a separate heading. The 4 years old Panjab University incident had one-off coverage, so it is undue. I have made these changes here. --Yoonadue (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3 makes a good point. Fatah for his various media activities has faced a severe backlash from Indian Muslims since the time he started his show. Various protests all over India demanded ban over his show Fatah ka fatwa. Recently, on Twitter, I myself noticed that he tweeted a number of fake news, mostly, if said rightly, are either Islamophobic or anti-Pakistan, as this article states that Fatah is staunch critic of Pakistan. I would suggest a due section of Criticm. Best - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
This may add to the criticism section. [1] Much more can be added to the criticism section with sources from Urdu as well. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nadeem al-Wajidi's challenge to Tarek Fateh.

Your source is unreliable and the section has more than enough petty details that we don't really need anymore. I am also critical of this unnecessary revert which was made without addressing the issues raised above. @Kautilya3: you cannot write in Wikivoice that this person is spreading fake news unless he has been successfully sued, but even then attribution will be required. Why you restored the undue section about Panjab University, and where he was "attacked by students"? Yoonadue (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't address yourself as "we". What is wrong with the source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Why I should not address as we when this article as a whole concerns Wikipedia? You are yet to explain where he was "attacked by students" and how this trivial incident is any important for inclusion. Similarly you haven't addressed the BLP violation being done by you. As for the unreliable source, read [8]; it is just a blog and not a WP:RS. --Yoonadue (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean, "you are yet to explain"? Did you ask me that question before? You are getting increasingly pretentious. First claimining that there is a "BLP issue" and now claiming to represent the "whole Wikipedia".
There is no BLP issue, you are not speaking for the whole Wikipedia, and if there is bad wording you want to fix, please go ahead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia article, and not my article, thus I would state the concerns with the article as what "we" should do about it. You can't state in Wikivoice that the person is spreading fake news. Where have you answered my query that "where he was "attacked by students" and how this trivial incident is any important for inclusion". BLP violation exists here and remember that the whole problematic section was added by a blocked sock[9][10] you could be wrong if you are treating it as some final word. I have notified WP:BLPN too about this. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
See WP:Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels. The phrase "fake news" falls under that guidelines; Wikipedia should not use it unless it's clearly attributed to a source. "Accused of spreading misinformation" or "Accused of posting misleading content" are arguable more neutral than the charged term "fake news." OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is Tarek Fateh?

Tarek Fatah, a former leftist student leader and a practising journalist from Canada, is one of the most vociferous critics of Pakistan- the country where he was born


Topics mint-india-wire Tarek FatahreligionPakistanradical IslamfundamentalismBalochistanmilitary-industrial complexseditionZia-ul HaqleftistjournalismSalman Rushdie New Delhi: After writing a book titled The Jew is not my Enemy, his next book is called The Hindu is not my Enemy.

The titles and the themes explored would not be ordinarily deemed provocative—except that the author in question is a Pakistani born Canadian.

Many Indians seem to love him.

Why? Because he is one of the most vociferous critics of the country where he was born—i.e. Pakistan. And he is anything but an apologist or sympathiser for or of the radical Islamist.

Sample this:

“Forget about Pakistan. At some stage, it will wither away. At some stage, Balochistan has to secede. It is the fifth civil war they are fighting against the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military is an industrial mafia that controls everything from cereals to trucks to missiles to magazines to banks. It is the most vivid example of what US President (Dwight) D. Eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex.


“Bangladesh, on the other hand, is an incredibly exciting place to be because that is where the Muslim vs the Islamist fight is taking place...."

This is a excerpt from an interview Fatah gave to The Times of India on a visit to India in 2013.

And this is from his blog: “I write as a Muslim whose ancestors were Hindu. My religion, Islam, is rooted in Judaism, while my Punjabi culture is tied to that of the Sikhs. Yet I am told by Islamists that without shedding this multifaceted heritage, if not outrightly rejecting it, I cannot be considered a true Muslim."

His views on radicalism and fundamentalism have resulted in a section of the Indian media dubbing him an “advocate of a progressive and liberal Muslim identity."

Born in Pakistan in 1949, Fatah was a leftist student leader in the 1960s and 1970s.

It was in these decades that he was twice imprisoned by successive military rulers of Pakistan. In 1977, he was charged with sedition by General Zia-ul Haq and barred from being a journalist in the country. In 1987, he moved to Canada where he has been active in journalism.

His own introduction to himself goes like this on his blog: “I am an Indian born in Pakistan, a Punjabi born in Islam; an immigrant in Canada with a Muslim consciousness, grounded in a Marxist youth."


“I am one of Salman Rushdie’s many Midnight’s Children: we were snatched from the cradle of a great civilization and made permanent refugees, sent in search of an oasis that turned out to be a mirage. I am in pain, a living witness to how dreams of hope and enlightenment can be turned into a nightmare of despair and failure. Promises made to the children of my generation that were never meant to be kept." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.210.203.248 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thesis

  • Kassam, Shelina (2018). Standing on Guard for Thee: The Acceptable Muslim and Boundaries of Racialized Inclusion in Canada (Thesis). University of Toronto.

TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tarek_Fatah/Archive_1&oldid=1151931526"