Talk:Rahim Jaffer

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Wikipeep 494 05:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: version restored. No reason was given for deleting material previously restored by  CJCurrie.
Mikereichold 21:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   CJCurrie 

message: Greetings user 142.68.224.209
You accompanied your speedy deletion of my edit with the word “vandalism.” In our coming discussion, you might find it helpful to first learn more about Wikipedia protocol at these two links: 
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
Wikipedia:Vandalism
Here is one quote from the above Wikipedia link:
“Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, the word should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed. If the edits in question are made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling a person making such edits a "vandal", discuss his or her specific edits with him or her.”
Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said in other cases where this very issue has come up, the problem with this is that it sets up a WP:NPOV-violating assertion that the Conservative MPs had a moral obligation to vote in favour of the legislation, and are thus being singled out for committing some sort of ethical or moral lapse in their duties as MPs. It's not being presented as what it is, which is a legitimate difference of opinion on a contentious issue, but as an unquestioned POV implication that their votes on the legislation are notable precisely because they somehow violated some sort of moral or ethical code by voting as they did. While I may personally agree that the legislation should have gone through, including it in the bios of each individual Conservative MP isn't a useful or neutral contribution — it's a statement of opinion masquerading as fact. Why do I feel like I'm going to have to turn this response into an automatic boilertext template that I can just subst every time this discussion comes up? Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Conscientious Objectors” to “Wars Not Sanctioned by United Nations” 

message: Surely this cannot be correct. Obviously as an Ismaili, Jaffer is ethnically Gujarati, and many Gujarati Muslim Muhajirs migrated to Pakistan in 1947 when India was partitioned. But he was born in Uganda and his family may or may not have migrated there from Gujarat, India, after the Partition. His connection with Pakistan must obviously be extremely remote: indeed, his ethnic antecedents lie over the Indian border in Gujarat, which of course went to India rather than Pakistan in 1947. This should clearly be amended to "South Asian Canadians." Masalai (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category: Pakistani Canadians

message: Does this paragraph need to be there? Not sure it is relevant to the arrest and conviction of Jaffer. Should it be moved or removed? DSatYVR (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest and conviction paragraph 

message: Even though they're broken, I've decided not to delete the external links for the time being because they may only be temporarily broken as Jaffer is embroiled in the current scandal. If someone else decides they should be removed due to being broken, that's fine by me. Wikidsoup [talk] 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both external links broken 

message: Yes, Ismailis are Muslims. The main difference between the regular Muslim and Ismaili Muslim is that the regular muslims are guided by the teachings of prophet Mohammed where as Ismailis are guided by the Aga Khan. Almost all East Africans with Indian origin were brought from India at the end of 19th century as indentured labor force during the construction of the Uganda Railway.As a strict rule, Muslims are prohibitted from consuming alcohol and resorting to robbery. Thieves and prostitutes are still stoned to brutal injuries in modern Saudi Arabia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.43.208 (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ismailis are Muslims. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia exists to be a neutral source of reliably sourced information — that is, there's no place for your own personal opinion about whether they're Muslim enough for your taste or not. Our article on Ismailism begins with the sentence "Ismāʿīlism (Arabic: الإسماعيليون al-Ismāʿīliyyūn; Persian: اسماعیلیان Esmāʿiliyān; Urdu: إسماعیلی Ismāʿīlī) is a branch of Shia Islam", so this article isn't going to make alternative claims until such time as there's a consensus to change that one. If you don't like it, take it up at Talk:Ismailism; a biography of a single individual is not the place for a broad discussion of whether Ismailis are truly Muslim or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The problem is that any POV debate about whether Ismailis are real Muslims or sectarian heretics is about Ismailism in general; it is not about Rahim Jaffer. I'm not saying discussion can't happen on this question — I did refer you to Talk:Ismailism, after all — but a biographical article about an individual Ismaili is not the place for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim? 

message: DESPITE the warning message that appears on this page, nobody should update this wikipedia page until the Commons Committee has decided to go ahead with the proposed contempt charges or not. They're meeting again next week. In the meantime, any updates to this page (either positive or negative in nature) would be highly counter-productive and unhelpful. Mardiste (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  update